what’s mine is yours, or is it? knowledge sharing in ...492062/fulltext02.pdf · employees may be...
TRANSCRIPT
What’s mine is yours, or is it?
Knowledge sharing in voluntary project-based organizations
The case of AIESEC – the largest international student-run organization
Author: Gabriele Petrauskaite
Supervisor: Malin Näsholm
Student Umeå School of Business and Economics Autumn semester 2011 Master thesis, one-year, 15 hp
ABSTRACT
In knowledge economy, organizational knowledge is considered to be a critical strategic resource which may help the organization to achieve competitive advantage; therefore, knowledge sharing, as one of the knowledge management processes, attracts the attention of both researchers and practitioners. Knowledge sharing may bring many benefits such as personal development for the employees and knowledge accumulation for the organization. However, at the same time it is very challenging because employees may be very mobile, too occupied to engage in knowledge sharing, or just unwilling to share their valuable knowledge. Nevertheless, although many organizations have started to invest heavily in various knowledge sharing mechanisms, quite often these processes are not effective because various organizational and individual factors impede the usage of those mechanisms.
This study seeks to increase the understanding of how and which of such factors affect knowledge sharing in voluntary project-based organizations. Ten in-depth interviews have been conducted with the project managers in AIESEC, the largest international student organization, in order to find out what KS mechanisms they use, and what enables or hinders KS in this organization.
It was found that in this organization KS takes place at all organizational levels, and the most popular KS mechanisms are documents and social interaction. Various documents include planning and tracking tools, proposals for sponsors, budget spread-sheets, feedback forms from participants and companies, and reports about functional areas. Social interaction comprises individual and group meetings, including trainings, coaching or mentoring, conversations over the phone and software Skype, discussions in conferences and communication in social groups online. So there is a balance between the KS mechanisms used to personalize and codify knowledge. However, the individualized KS mechanisms dominate on the individualization- institutionalization dimension. Also AIESEC members share all types of knowledge: tacit and explicit, individual and collective.
Factors affecting KS can be categorized in 5 groups: Organizational context, Interpersonal and Team characteristics, Cultural characteristics, Individual characteristics, and Motivational factors. As KS in AIESEC takes place quite intensively, not surprisingly more KS facilitators were identified. The most significant ones in each group are as follows: the organizational culture and structure; diversity and strong social ties; willingness to help, and structure and exactness; self-efficiency and personal characteristics such as talkativeness, open-mindedness, empathy, motivation, responsibility and ambitiousness; perceived personal benefits, interpersonal trust, and organizational commitment. The few factors identified that might impede KS in AIESEC are the lack of time, lack of KS regulation and some negative cultural attitudes.
Key words: knowledge sharing, knowledge sharing mechanisms, voluntary project-based organizations, organizational context, interpersonal and team characteristics, cultural characteristics, individual characteristics, and motivational factors
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank to my supervisor Malin Näsholm who professionally guided me throughout this research work and forced me to think independently and take important decisions on time.
Also, I would like to thank to those ten people (Milos Djuricanin, Mohamed Ouf, Alexandra Bese, Pavel Valkanov, Egor Utkin, Maryna Silchenko Maclean Commey, Anastasia Markelova, and Elena Culai) who agreed to participate in long interviews and sincerely shared with me their experiences.
I dedicate this thesis to those who do care...
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1. Knowledge management in the centre of attention ......................................... 1
1.1.2. The benefits of knowledge sharing .................................................................. 2
1.1.3. The challenges of knowledge sharing .............................................................. 2
1.1.4. Factors influencing KS .................................................................................... 3
1.2. Research context: AIESEC– the largest international student organization .......... 4
1.3. Research question ................................................................................................... 5
1.4. Research objectives ................................................................................................ 5
1.5. Delimitation of the study ........................................................................................ 5
1.6. Short definitions of the main concepts ................................................................... 5
2. THEORETICAL METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 7
2.1. Research philosophy .............................................................................................. 7
2.1.1 Ontology ........................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2. Epistemology ................................................................................................... 8
2.1.3. Relationship between the research and the researcher ..................................... 9
2.2. Research approach.................................................................................................. 9
2.3. Theory source criticism ........................................................................................ 10
2.4. Research design .................................................................................................... 11
2.4.1. The choice of research design ........................................................................ 11
2.4.2. The type of case study ................................................................................... 12
2.4.3. The advantages and implications of cases study design ................................ 13
2.5. Research method choice ....................................................................................... 14
2.5.1. Qualitative versus quantitative research ........................................................ 15
2.5.2. Qualitative interviews .................................................................................... 15
3. LITERATURE REVIEW PART 1: KNOWLEDGE AND KS MECHANISMS ...... 17
3.1. Knowledge transfer as part of organizational learning process ........................... 17
3.2. KS definition ........................................................................................................ 18
3.3. Typology and properties of knowledge ................................................................ 19
3.4. KM strategies: codification versus personalization ............................................. 21
3.5. Mechanisms for KS in projects ............................................................................ 21
3.5.1. Classification of KS mechanisms in project-based organizations ................. 21
3.5.2. Examples of KS mechanisms ........................................................................ 23
3.5.3. Managerial KS mechanisms .......................................................................... 25
4. LITERATURE REVIEW PART 2: POTENTIAL KS FACILITATORS AND BARRIERS ..................................................................................................................... 26
4.1. Organizational context ......................................................................................... 28
4.1.1. Management support ...................................................................................... 28
4.1.2. Rewards and incentives ................................................................................. 28
4.1.3. Organizational structure ................................................................................. 29
4.1.4. Organizational culture and climate ................................................................ 30
4.1.5. Leadership characteristics .............................................................................. 32
4.2. Interpersonal and team characteristics ................................................................. 32
4.2.1. Team characteristics and processes ............................................................... 32
4.2.2. Diversity ......................................................................................................... 33
4.2.3. Social networks .............................................................................................. 33
4.2.4. Team development stage................................................................................ 34
4.3. Cultural characteristics ......................................................................................... 34
4.3.1. Collectivistic-individualistic and vertical – horizontal culture ...................... 34
4.3.2. The characteristics of national culture ........................................................... 34
4.4. Individual characteristics...................................................................................... 35
4.4.1. Education, work experience ........................................................................... 35
4.4.2. Personality ..................................................................................................... 35
4.4.3. Self-efficiency ................................................................................................ 35
3.4.4. Perceptions ..................................................................................................... 36
4.5. Motivational factors ............................................................................................. 36
4.5.1. Beliefs of knowledge ownership .................................................................... 36
4.5.2. Perceived personal benefits ........................................................................... 36
4.5.3. Perceived value of knowledge ....................................................................... 36
4.5.4. Perceived costs ............................................................................................... 36
4.5.5. Justice ............................................................................................................. 37
4.5.6. Interpersonal trust .......................................................................................... 37
4.5.6. Individual attitudes ........................................................................................ 38
4.6. Theoretical framework of potential KS facilitators and barriers.......................... 38
5. PRACTICAL METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 40
5.1. The collection of empirical material .................................................................... 40
5.1.1. Respondent type ............................................................................................. 40
5.1.2. Respondent selection ..................................................................................... 41
5.1.3. The interview guide ....................................................................................... 42
5.1.4. Conducting the interviews: procedural and ethical considerations................ 42
5.2. Short description of the interviews....................................................................... 44
5.3. Description of the respondents ............................................................................. 45
5.3.1. Milos Djuricanin ............................................................................................ 45
5.3.2. Mohamed Ouf ................................................................................................ 46
5.3.3. Alexandra Bese .............................................................................................. 46
5.3.4. Pavel Valkanov .............................................................................................. 47
5.3.5. Egor Utkin ...................................................................................................... 47
5.3.6. Maryna Silchenko .......................................................................................... 48
5.3.7. Maclean Commey .......................................................................................... 49
5.3.8. Dušan Kostadinović ....................................................................................... 49
5.3.9. Anastasia Markelova ...................................................................................... 50
5.3.10. Elena Culai ................................................................................................... 50
5.2. Empirical material processing .............................................................................. 51
5.3. Results presentation.............................................................................................. 52
5.4. Result analysis ...................................................................................................... 53
5.5. Truth criteria ......................................................................................................... 54
6. RESULTS PART 1: KNOWLEDGE AND KS MECHANIMS ................................ 56
6.1. KS inside the team................................................................................................ 57
6.1.1. Team face-to-face meetings, working together ............................................. 57
6.1.2. Individual meetings with team members: training, coaching, and mentoring 58
6.1.3. Phone and Skype ............................................................................................ 59
6.1.4. Google groups, facebook ............................................................................... 59
6.1.5. Documents ..................................................................................................... 60
6.1.6. Emails, online documents, folders in personal computers, Dropbox ............ 61
6.1.7. Posters in the office ........................................................................................ 62
6.2. Transition: KS between PMs of the same or similar projectS ............................. 62
6.3. KS at local and national level ............................................................................... 65
6.3.2. Discussions or training sessions in national conferences KS, other meetings65
6.3.3. Training, coaching, and mentoring from LC and MC ................................... 67
6.3.4. Centralized KM .............................................................................................. 67
6.4. KS at the international level ................................................................................. 68
6.5. KS outside the organization ................................................................................. 69
7. RESULTS PART2: FACTORS INFLUENCING KS ............................................... 70
7.1. Organizational context ......................................................................................... 70
7.1.1. Management support ...................................................................................... 70
7.1.2. Rewards and incentives ................................................................................. 72
7.1.3. Organizational structure ................................................................................. 72
7.1.4. Organizational culture and climate ................................................................ 78
7.1.5. Empowering leadership ................................................................................. 81
7.2. Interpersonal and Team characteristics ................................................................ 82
7.2.1. Team characteristics and processes ............................................................... 82
7.2.2. Diversity ......................................................................................................... 82
7.2.3. Social networks .............................................................................................. 83
7.2.4 Team development stage................................................................................. 84
7.3. Cultural characteristics ......................................................................................... 85
7.3.1. Collectivistic –individualistic culture ............................................................ 85
7.3.2. National culture .............................................................................................. 86
7.4. Individual characteristics...................................................................................... 87
7.4.1. Education, work experience ........................................................................... 87
7.4.2. Personality ..................................................................................................... 88
7.4.3. Self-efficiency ................................................................................................ 90
7.4.4. Perceptions ..................................................................................................... 91
7.5. Motivational factors ............................................................................................. 91
7.5.1. Beliefs of knowledge ownership .................................................................... 92
7.5.2. Perceived personal benefits ........................................................................... 92
7.5.3. Perceived value of knowledge ....................................................................... 93
7.5.4. Perceived costs ............................................................................................... 94
7.5.5. Justice ............................................................................................................. 97
7.5.6. Interpersonal trust .......................................................................................... 97
7.5.7. Individual attitudes ........................................................................................ 99
8. ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS ............................................................................. 101
8.1. Knowledge and KS mechanisms ........................................................................ 101
8.1.1. KS mechanisms used in AIESEC ................................................................ 101
8.1.2 The types of knowledge shared in AIESEC ................................................. 103
8.2. Factors ................................................................................................................ 105
8.2.1. Organizational context ................................................................................. 105
8.2.2. Interpersonal and team characteristics ......................................................... 107
8.2.3. Cultural characteristics ................................................................................ 108
8.2.4. Individual characteristics ............................................................................. 109
8.2.5. Motivational factors ..................................................................................... 110
9. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................... 113
9.1. KS mechanisms and knowledge types ............................................................... 113
9.2. Factors affecting KS ........................................................................................... 114
9.3. The theoretical significance of the study and practical implications ................. 117
9.4. Future research ................................................................................................... 117
References .................................................................................................................... 119
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. Organizational learning process (Jerez-Gómez et al., 2005, p. 716) .............. 18
Figure 2. A model for KS research (Wang & Noe, 2010, p. 116) .................................. 28
Table 1. The taxonomy of knowledge. Created by the author based on (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002; Spender, 1996; Blackler, 1995) ............................................................. 20
Table 2. Framework of KS mechanisms for managing distributed knowledge and expertise in project-based organization (Boh, W. F., 2007, p. 33) ................................. 22
Table 3. Recommendations of different KS mechanisms depending on organization’s characteristics (Boh, W. F., 2007, p. 36) ........................................................................ 23
Table 4. Examples of KS mechanisms in project-based organizations (Boh, 2007, p. 40) ........................................................................................................................................ 23
Table 5. Major KS mechanisms in global R&D organizations (Chai et. al., 2003, p.707) ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Table 6. Potential KS facilitators and barriers. Created by the author based on the literature review. ............................................................................................................. 39
Table 7. Short description of the interviews. Created by the author based on the empirical material gathered ............................................................................................ 44
Table 8. Acronyms and terms used in AIESEC. Created by the author based on personal experience and (AIESEC, 2011b) .................................................................................. 53
Table 9. KS mechanisms used in AIESEC. Created by the author based on the empirical material ......................................................................................................................... 103
APPENDIXES
Appendix 1.Theoretical framework of potential KS facilitators and barriers
Appendix 2. Interview guide
1
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND
1.1.1. Knowledge management in the centre of attention
In today's knowledge-intensive economy, not surprisingly knowledge management (henceforth KM) continues to be one of the dominant themes among management researchers (Matzler et al., 2008, p. 302). Cabrera and Cabrera (2002, p. 687) identify two factors that might have made the biggest contribution to this interest. First, both researchers and business managers consider organizational knowledge as a critical strategic resource (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002, p. 687; Fernie et. al., 2003, p. 178; Wang & Noe, 2010, p. 115; Landaeta, 2008, p. 29; Geisler, 2007, p. 468; van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004, p. 117; Yang & Wu, 2008, p. 1128). Knowledge is seen as a potential source of competitive advantage because it is “unique, path dependent, causally ambiguous, and hard to imitate or substitute” (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002, p. 687). Second, the importance of the organizational context is emphasised: knowledge as an intangible asset is most valuable to the organization because of “the intensification of globalization, acceleration in the rate of change and expansion in the use of information technology” (Matzler et al., 2008, p. 302). Indeed, the advancement in information and communication technologies enabled employees to communicate and exchange information even if they are geographically dispersed (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002, p. 687; Matzler et al., 2008, p. 302).
In addition, both the amount of organizations adopting “project-style” for its activities and the importance of such “project-based” actions for the company is increasing in many different industry sectors (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008, p.7). KM is extremely important to efficient project management because projects become more and more complex and the need to adapt knowledge and experience from daily organizational activities and from previous projects is increasing; KM success through personal and project’s effectiveness affect organization’s performance (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008, p.9)
KM in projects can be defined as “the policies, tools, and knowledge processes that projects and project-based organizations can use to take advantage of the knowledge that is available within and outside projects” (Kotnour, 1999, noted in Landaeta, 2008, p. 29). Kasvi et. al. (2003, p. 572) classify KM processes in projects in four main groups: knowledge creation, knowledge administration, knowledge dissemination, and knowledge utilisation. Many researchers (e.g., Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002, p. 689; Riege, 2005, p. 18; Wang & Noe, 2010, p. 115; Foss et. al., 2009, p. 4; van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004, p. 117) claim that knowledge sharing (henceforth KS), falling into the category of knowledge dissemination, is the key KM process: if knowledge is shared among employees, “both the organization and individuals can grow up”; however, if KS does not take place, knowledge will not be preserved and its benefits will not be realized (Yang & Wu, 2008, pp. 1130-1131). The paradox is that project-based organizations constantly lack knowledge for their new projects, at the same time having an opportunity to find it, at least some, in their other on-going or closed projects (Landaeta,
2
2008, p. 30). Consequently, KS attracts increasing attention in many project-based organisations (Fernie et. al., 2003, p. 178).
1.1.2. The benefits of knowledge sharing
KS can bring various benefits for the organization. Sharing and pooling their knowledge with others, employees develop new skills and competences (Matzler et al., 2008, p. 302). Also, purposeful KS is expected to lead to individual and organisational learning, innovation and faster completion of new product development, cost reduction and revenue increase (Riege, 2005, p. 18; Wang & Noe, 2010, p. 115).
KS is even more important in projects because every project deals with uncertainty, and the lack of vital knowledge implies that project team is not able to achieved project goals without encountering issues and problems (Landaeta, 2008, p. 30). Different from functional organizations where project teams can get existing knowledge from certain departments or observing more experienced employees, in project-based organizations knowledge belongs to mobile individuals working on specific projects, so knowledge transfer to the subsequent projects and to the main organization needs to be purposely and systematically implemented (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008, p. 9): “it is necessary to identify, capture, and make this knowledge available” (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008, p. 10). The wide-spread belief that projects have little in common and no inter-project learning takes place is contradicted by Boh (2006, p. 28) who claims that similar problems may be found across different projects and through applying the same solutions organizations could reduce their costs; also, sometimes ideas from one project can help to solve issues in the other. Indeed, it was found that knowledge transfer across projects can have a positive impact on the capabilities of projects and their performance (Landaeta, 2008, p. 35).
1.1.3. The challenges of knowledge sharing
However, despite the recognized benefits, the effective KM and KS is still one of the most important challenges in today‘s organizations (van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004, p. 117). Two main factors that often impede KS in organizations are great staff turnover and reluctance to engage in KS (O’Neill & Adya, 2007, p. 430). One of the biggest issues in KS comes from employees’ mobility. Different form other assets, organizations cannot owe knowledge possessed by workers, who can leave any time and take their precious knowledge with them, so that valuable employees’ knowledge is irretrievably lost (Riege, 2005, p. 19). The loss of knowledge in this manner is even more common nowadays because of two trends: restructuring, meaning that the key managers leave the organization or they are reassigned another position, and outsourcing, when the implementation of the entire groups of activities take over by other companies that, in turn, also possess the related knowledge (Geisler, 2007, p. 471). The situation becomes even more complicated, because knowledge workers are considered to be “not interchangeable”, i.e. their knowledge is related to their personal experience and particular context such as specific industry or organization (Geisler, 2007, p. 472). However, both the retention of highly knowledgeable staff and their replacement can be very costly (Foss et. al., 2009, p. 1).
3
Even if the employees stay in the organization, their knowledge can rapidly become obsolete if not renewed (Riege, 2005, p. 19). Wang & Noe (2009, p. 115) claim that acquiring organizational knowledge via staffing and training is not sufficient anymore; organizations must explore the opportunities to make use of the already existing knowledge-based resources. Organizations need “the explicit governance and management of knowledge sharing” (Foss et. al., 2009, p. 3) to make knowledge easily accessible. Nevertheless, the accessibility of knowledge remains limited because knowledge is tied to people and therefore is hard to extract (Riege, 2005, p. 19). Sometimes individuals consider their knowledge highly valuable and therefore are unwilling to share it, at least not without certain incentives (Yang & Wu, 2008, p. 1153).
Project-based organizations often face two types of challenges in KS: how to avoid the “reinvention of the wheel” and how to enhance communication between team members of different projects (Ruuska & Vartiainen, 2005, p. 374). Project team members are normally ‘knowledge workers’ (Fernie et. al., 2003, p. 178) and projects are temporary (Lindner & Wald, 2010, p. 9), which means that after the closure of the project, employees move on to the next project without reflecting on past failures, so that their experience together with the lessons learnt are dispersed (Boh, 2006, p. 28; Kasvi et. al., 2003, p. 571). In project-based organizations it is typical that employees are more empowered and information is more decentralized, which reinforces knowledge fragmentation (Kasvi et. al., 2003, p. 571). Even during the project the turnover of team members may be great, and they may be too occupied with project tasks or for other reasons be not motivated to share their knowledge (Kasvi et. al., 2003, pp. 571, 580). Quite often team members of a project are people who have never worked together previously and do not expect to work together again (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008, p. 7), so, on the one hand, it becomes essential that they share their knowledge with each other, but on the other hand it is harder to force them to do so. Also, opposite to learning as a long cumulative process, in temporary project-based organizations knowledge needs to be assimilated quickly (Landaeta, 2008, p. 29). So the main challenge for project managers is “to understand and address these complex relationships between KM and the nature of projects in order to promote project and organizational learning” (Landaeta, 2008, p. 29).
1.1.4. Factors influencing KS
For some time researchers were trying to address the gap between the need for knowledge and the difficulties to obtain it. Finally, it was found that the effectiveness of KS depends on the properties of knowledge (Matzler et al., 2008, p. 303; Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002, p. 690; Spender, 1996), and, accordingly, different mechanisms have been suggested to facilitate KS of different types of knowledge (Boh, 2007, p. 40; Chai et. al., 2003, p. 707; Landaeta, 2008, p. 36; Geisler, 2007, p. 472). However, companies started to invest heavily only in knowledge management systems, “the state-of-the-art technology to facilitate the collection, storage, and distribution of knowledge” (Wang & Noe, 2010, p. 115), because initially KM was considered to be a technological issue (Adenfelt & Lagerström, 2006, p. 192; Yang & Wu, 2008, p. 1128).
However, the factors that may have influence on KS are not only technical, meaning communication technology and support, but also social, including staff, organizational
4
culture and structure (Adenfelt & Lagerström, 2006, p. 193). And indeed, it was found that efficient KS is rarely achieved not due to technological problems; rather, important factors such as organizational context and individual characteristics are often not sufficiently taken into account (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002, p. 688; Wang & Noe, 2010, p. 116). “The failure of many knowledge transfer systems is often a result of cultural factors rather than technological oversights” (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008, p. 7). Based on other studies, Lindner and Wald (2010, p. 10) also claim that information and communication technologies are the prerequisite for KS, but they play much less relevant role than the factors related to organizational structure and culture.
Not surprisingly, this issue attracted researchers’ attention, and the influence of a great amount of factors on KS have been investigated (Riege, 2005, Wang & Noe, 2010); however, almost all research has been done in the organizational context with a few exceptions (Bresnen et. al., 2003; Lindner & Wald, 2010; Adenfelt & Lagerström, 2006; Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008) in project environments.
1.2. RESEARCH CONTEXT: AIESEC– THE LARGEST INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ORGANIZATION
The empirical context chosen for this research is the organization AIESEC. It is the largest student-run organisation in the world, whose over 60,000 members belong to approximately 1,600 universities in 110 countries and territories (AIESEC, 2011a). AIESEC emphasis is on “providing a platform for youth leadership development” by creating a range of leadership roles to run AIESEC at local, national, regional and global levels, by providing a variety of trainings in soft skills and functional areas in thousands of local and international activities, including conferences, and by arranging a great deal of international internships and exchanges; “AIESEC offers young people the opportunity to be global citizens, to change the world, and to get experience and skills that matter today” (AIESEC, 2011a).
AIESEC has been chosen for this research for several reasons. First, it is a successful organization with 60 years of experience and constantly improving performance (AIESEC, 2011a). Second, it is a project-based organization, because most of the characteristics of such organizations (Landaeta, 2008, p. 30) apply to AIESEC: most of AIESEC results are achieved via projects that are defined in scope, budget and time; also, different projects share common organizational resources and are often coordinated at a higher, for example, regional or international level; project managers (henceforth, PM) are responsible for project implementation; several projects can be run simultaneously, but start or finish and different times etc. (AIESEC, 2011b). Third, AIESEC is an interesting context for investigating the barriers and enablers for KS. Almost all of its members are students at the age of 18-25 years (AIESEC, 2011a, b). Several researchers (Finegold et al., 2002, Linnehan & Blau, 2003; Iverson & Pullman, 2000) have found that young workers are more eager to be mobile and change jobs frequently; so having such young personnel sharpens the turnover issue in AIESEC projects. Sometimes students may leave because they do not have enough effort for their main activity, studies, and their work in AIESEC at the same time. Actually, even if individuals manage their resources effectively and stay in AIESEC during their studying period, they naturally leave the organization as they graduate because AIESEC
5
is a student organization. Finally, AIESEC is a voluntary organization where employees are not paid and are not bound by work contracts, and the positions and functions are rarely clearly defined (AIESEC, 2011a, b). This could influence KS in both ways: employees may not share knowledge because they do not receive monetary rewards, because it is not included in their role, because they do not trust people with whom they work for a short period of time etc.; on the other hand, they may be also more willing to engage in KS because they want to establish valuable contacts with colleagues for the start of career, value more intrinsic incentives, but worry less about the job security etc. Finally, the researcher has an easy access to both organization’s databases and employees.
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTION
The previous discussion combined with the empirical context leads to the formulation of the research question of this thesis:
• What encourages or hinders knowledge sharing in voluntary project-based organizations?
1.4. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The overall purpose of the study is to increase the understanding of how and why KS takes place in voluntary project-based organizations.
In order to achieve this objective, specific research objectives have been formulated:
• To examine whether and what types of KS mechanisms are used in voluntary project-based organizations.
• To examine what factors facilitate or hinder KS in voluntary project-based organizations.
These objectives will be addressed through the case study of the organization AIESEC.
1.5. DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY
This study is limited both theoretically and practically. In order to keep it manageable, the focus will be only on KS as one of the KM processes and as a part of organizational learning process. KS concept will be limited to providing knowledge without considering receiving. There will be no differentiation made between the quality and quantity of knowledge shared when considering the positive or negative influence on KS. No limitations are placed on the type of knowledge. Finally, the emphasis will be put on the individual and organizational rather than the technological factors influencing KS. From practical perspective, only one organization will be examined via the interviews with several project managers.
1.6. SHORT DEFINITIONS OF THE MAIN CONCEPTS
Knowledge
6
In this thesis the approach to knowledge and the definition by Wang & Noe (2010, p. 117) will be adopted: knowledge is the “information processed by individuals including ideas, facts, expertise, and judgments relevant for individual, team, and organizational performance”. In other words, the author will follow other researchers who us the terms information and knowledge interchangeably due to the lack of practical benefits of separating them (Wang & Noe, 2010, p. 117).
Knowledge management (KM)
Knowledge management comprise policies, tools, and processes that organizations use in order to exploit the benefits of the knowledge existing within and outside the organization (Landaeta, 2008, p. 29). The main groups of KM processes are knowledge creation, administration, dissemination, and utilisation (Kasvi et. al., 2003, p. 572).
Knowledge sharing (KS)
Knowledge sharing is one of the KM processes, that can be assigned to the group if knowledge dissemination. Sometimes KS can be identified with knowledge transfer (Matzler et al., 2008, p. 303), but also it can represent just a part of it (Wang & Noe, 2010, p. 117). Some authors (van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004, p. 118; Foss et. al., 2009, p.4) claim that it involves both knowledge providing (donating, giving) and knowledge receiving (collecting), while Wang & Noe (2010, p. 117) argue that knowledge sharing is only about the provision of knowledge in order to help other employees, to collaborate and solve problems, or to develop new ideas. This latter approach is held in this study.
Project-based organisations (PBOs)
Probably the best definition of project-based organizations is provided by Landaeta (2008, p. 30); “the relevant characteristics of project-based organizations include but are not limited to:
(a) project managers’ supervision of more than one project at any time; (b) projects that share common organizational resources; (c) projects can have different areas of interests; (d) organizational products and services are accomplish only through projects; (e) project managers hold the power over the implementation of the activities; (f) employees can be assigned to several projects at the same time; (g) there is a dynamic and stochastic arrival of projects into the organization”.
7
2. THEORETICAL METHODOLOGY
The author totally agrees with the proposition of Saunders et. al. (2009, p. 323) that “the key point to consider is the consistency between the research question and objectives, the strategy employed and the methods of data collection”; consequently, the author will explain all these research aspects and will connect them in the following sections.
First, the philosophy of this research will be discussed in terms of ontology and epistemology. The philosophy adopted implies that the researcher has a very important role in terms of the research decisions and processes; consequently, the relationship between the research and the researcher as well as potential preconceptions will be explained. The research approach, described and justified afterwards, suggests the importance of the concepts, theories, and literature in terms of witch the interpretation of results is made; therefore, the methodology for collecting and processing literature will be explained and the quality of literature sources evaluated. Then the research design and its type will be explained as well as its advantages and implications. Finally the research method will be discussed leading to the choice of the data collection techniques. The practical methodology about how the empirical material has been collected, processed and analysed will be provided after the two literature review chapters, so that the reader would already have a deeper understanding of the topic and would be familiar with the concepts used and theoretical frameworks referred to.
2.1. RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY
Research philosophy “relates to the development of knowledge and the nature of that knowledge” (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 107). It is important because it affects what kind of assumptions the researcher makes and how she formulates the research problem (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 108; Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 23).
2.1.1 Ontology
Ontology refers to the “nature of reality” (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 110), or the consideration of social entities in relation with social actors (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 20). As the author of this thesis, I believe that there is no one, objective, truth, and that social entities such as organizations cannot exist separately from the related social actors such as their employees. In my opinion, these people are the ones that create and constantly change both the social situations and the ways they see them. Even more, they act in these situations depending on the meanings they assign to them. In other words, I think that the context plays an important role in how people behave and how they perceive their behaviours; on the other hand, their behaviours form a context for their perceptions. For example, I believe that the decision to share knowledge is not predefined but depends on certain situations and how the knowledge provider interprets them. Also, actions and interpretations can change depending on such factors as time, place, attitudes or values. It can be that a person shares her knowledge because she trusts the other person. Consequently, her sharing may encourage other people to share, to strengthen the trust and create a virtuous cycle. However, at the other point of time,
8
in other place or with other people her perceptions may change and she will not share knowledge which may result in reluctance of other people to share as well.
My views are similar to what in business research literature is named constructivism that maintains that social entities are constructed from “perceptions and consequent actions of social actors” (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 110) and that this process is endless (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 22). The proponents of this view also see the relationship between the interpretations possibly placed on the social situations and the actual actions (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 111). For instance, I agree with constructivists that it is much more important how managers give “individual meanings to their jobs and the way they think that those jobs should be Performed” rather than “the objective aspects of management” (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 111). In my opinion, the personal employee’s attitude to whether and how knowledge should be shared will be more important than, for instance, the formal rules or requirements to do that.
2.1.2. Epistemology
Epistemology refers to “what constitutes acceptable knowledge in the field of study” (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 112) with the central consideration of “whether or not the social world can and should be studied according to the same principles, procedures and ethos as the natural sciences” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 15).
As expressed previously, it is totally in my belief that social actors such as employees in the organizations give individual meanings to social situations and to own as well as others’ actions; consequently, in order to grasp the situation, firstly we need to understand how these people understand and interpret it. Referring to the previous example, it is impossible to understand why KS takes place unless we understand how the person involved sees KS and how these attitudes and perceptions affect her decision to engage in it. In other words, without understanding that it is trust in others that encourages the employee to engage in KS we cannot comprehend that trust in people is what fosters KS in the organization. So only through the employees’ point of view we can understand what is actually happening in the organization.
This view of mine is close to what researchers call interpretivism. The advocates of this view hold that the research among people is different from the research among objects because humans’ actions are highly dependent on their perceptions (that are impossible among objects), and therefore the research related to human behaviours requires different research principles and procedures than research related to natural sciences (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 116; Bryman & Bell, 2011, pp. 16-18). Interpretivists consider that the researcher needs to explore and understand “motives, actions and intentions” of social actors as well as interpret them in a meaningful way (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 111). In interpretivism, the emphasis is put on “the empathic understanding” rather than the explanation of human actions (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 16).
This view can be “highly appropriate in the case of business and management research, particularly in such fields as organizational behaviour” because situations in organizations are complex due to the variety of “circumstances and individuals coming together at a specific time” (Saunders et. al. , 2009, p. 116). Indeed, this is especially
9
true in project environments because, as discussed before, projects are limited in time and there is high staff turnover.
In the interpretivist view, the researcher takes a very important role both in the investigation and analysis of the results because he or she is the one who is “framing the questions and interpreting the answers” (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 114). Consequently, the relationship between the researcher and research implemented needs to be well understood.
2.1.3. Relationship between the research and the researcher
The author of this thesis has a strong interest in project management because she used to work in social projects in various non-profit organizations, and currently she is involved in studies about strategic project management. The choice of the empirical context for this investigation has been explained in the introductory chapter; however, it is worth mentioning that the author also used to work for the chosen organization, AIESEC, at the local level few years ago. On the one hand, the experience as an employee provides advantages such as better understanding of the organizational context and time saving related to gaining it (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 151). On the other hand, the formed preconceptions may prevent considering some aspects of the topic that could improve the research or asking questions about things that may seem obvious to both the interviewer and the interviewee (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 151).
Indeed, the author believes that AIESEC culture that emphasizes openness, diversity, and striving for excellence may positively affect KS in the organization. However, the topic of this thesis originates from personal experience of poor KS in one of the local projects, which suggests that there might be other factors affecting KS. Consequently, the author had a keen interest to understand what other AIESEC members think about what may facilitate or hinder KS in this organization.
In order to minimize the effect of the personal background, I have chosen to be very open in this research, and emphasize listening to the respondents rather than proposing and testing particular hypothesis.
2.2. RESEARCH APPROACH
Research approach has to do with the “relationship between theory and research” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 13). The main purpose of this thesis is to examine and understand what facilitates or impedes KS in voluntary project-based organizations. As explained in the introductory chapter, most of the research on such factors has been carried out in the organizational context while there is little known about them in the project context. On the one hand, because of the lack of specific literature it is impossible to formulate precise hypothesis that need to be confirmed or rejected through empirical investigation. On the other hand, it is possible to form a framework of reference about potential KS mechanisms and factors affecting their usage from the organizational theory. So I decided to use such a framework as guidance for investigating what actually is going on in projects with regards to KS: how project team members understand and interpret what affects their and others’ KS behaviour. The expectations are that from empirical results it will be possible both to derive some
10
conclusions about what kinds of KS mechanisms are used in the voluntary project-based organization AIESEC and to increase the understanding about the motives of their usage and the dependence on the specific context.
Referring to business research literature, it can be concluded that the dominant research approach in this thesis is inductive because inductive approach is “usually defined as inference from the particular to the general” (Ormerod, 2010, p. 1210) meaning that some more general conclusions can be made from particular findings; also, because the main purpose and strength of the inductive approach is the better understanding of “the nature of the problem <…> the way in which humans interpret their social world” (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 126). According to Ormerod (2010, p. 1211), “we are naturally in the habit of reasoning inductively”, and all the time researchers wish “to infer laws and theories that give insight into how the world works”, although the data or qualitative results collected are always inevitably limited. Indeed, the inductive approach is considered to be appropriate when the research topic is relatively new or little literature about it exist (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 127).
However, it is hard to agree that the expected outcome of this research will be exactly as the one of the inductive research, i.e. a formulated theory resulting from the analysis of empirical material (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 124; Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 13) because it would be difficult to formulate a sound theory or a model of what affects KS in voluntary organizations from several, although in-depth interviews, especially due to the dependency on dynamic circumstances and context.
That is one of the reasons why a reference framework has been constructed for the collection and interpretation of results, providing some general pre-assumptions of the areas of factors that can affect KS, the approach that is closer to deduction where the researcher from the existing knowledge “deduces a hypothesis that must then be subjected to empirical scrutiny” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 11). Nevertheless, this is not an uncommon combination: “just as deduction entails an element of induction, the inductive process is likely to entail a modicum of deduction” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 13).
2.3. THEORY SOURCE CRITICISM
Both the research philosophy of the author and the research approach in this thesis highlight the importance of the researcher as an active participant because she is the one responsible for the interpretation of the social reality in order to increase the understanding of the matter. However, the interpretation apart from two levels, i.e. the researcher interpreting others’ interpretations, also passes on to the third level where these interpretations are “further interpreted in terms of concepts, theories, and literature of disciplines” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 20). So special attention needs to be paid to how and what literature has been selected for such interpretation, or this particular case how the reference base has been created.
As mentioned before, the main topic, knowledge sharing in projects, has been chosen for professional and personal reasons. Then the preliminary search for the peer reviewed academic articles has been done in highly acknowledged databases: ScienceDirect, EbscoHost, Emerald and Web of Knowledge. Academic journals rather than books have
11
been chosen as primary target because they usually contain more updated information about the current research in the field as the publishing cycle for journals is normally shorter and more frequent. The search has been conducted using key words, alone and in combinations, such as “knowledge sharing”, “knowledge management“, “projects”, “project management”, “project-based organizations” and similar. Not surprisingly, most of the articles were found in recognized management, knowledge, organization and project related academic journals such as Strategic Management Journal, Management Science, Journal of Knowledge Management, Organization Studies, Organization Science, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, International Journal of Project Management, and Project Management Journal. The pre-screening of articles has been done by reading their abstracts as well as conclusion and discussion sections in order to understand the main idea and findings of each article. Based on such overview, the gap in the existing literature has been identified as developed and explained in the introductory section of this thesis.
Once the main purpose of the investigation has been set, the selected articles have been reviewed again with the focus on the KS mechanisms and the factors affecting their usage. Then articles most closely related to this specific topic have been chosen and read, at the same time taking notes and marking relevant quotes. The summaries of some articles have been made as well. Even more, important references in the text and bibliographies at the end of the other papers have been checked and some new relevant articles found in databases. In this sense, the most important article was “Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research” written by Wang and Noe and published just last year.
Wang and Noe (2010) have carried out a review of studies from several different disciplines on knowledge sharing at individual level in academically refereed journals: 79 articles from 1999 till 2008 and three most often referenced articles published earlier. However, their focus was on what kind of research has been done with regards to knowledge sharing, not paying much attention to the exact findings and conclusions; therefore, based on their classification of the research areas of KS, the author of this thesis reviewed the related articles in order to identify the factors in each area that could make influence on KS. The potential impact of each has been discussed based on the previous research. Nevertheless, the author did not rely entirely on the references provided by Wang and Noe (2010); instead, they were complemented with the findings of the relevant articles from the preliminary search, with a special emphasis on the research published in 2008 and later. For example, such authors as Liao (2008), Ajmal and Koskinen (2008), Matzler et al. (2008), Foss et. al. (2009) and Lindner and Wald (2010) have found additional factors or different aspects of the considered factors that have effect on KS. The extent to which each of the areas have been developed and discussed was influenced by the wealth of existing literature rather than the decisions of the author. The result of the extensive literature review was the reference framework, demonstrating potential enablers and barriers for KS (see Chapter 4).
2.4. RESEARCH DESIGN
2.4.1. The choice of research design
12
Research design is “the logical sequence that connects empirical data to a study’s initial research questions and, ultimately, to its conclusions” (Yin, 2009, p. 26). It is important to recognise that one research strategy as such is not better or worse than others; rather the choice depends on how well it assists in answering the research questions and accomplishing research objectives (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 141). The research question of this paper is planned to be answered by obtaining responses to how (by what mechanisms) knowledge is shared in voluntary project-based organizations and why. As already stressed several times, the researcher is eager to increase and clarify the understanding of KS processes in such organizations by seeking for new insights of how and why it actually works. Existing literature labels such type of researches as exploratory and claims that it is especially useful when even the problem itself sometimes is not clear (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 126). Indeed, before the investigation it can only be guessed whether employees in AIESEC use KS mechanisms or not, so what to focus on – facilitators or impediments of KS – is also unclear. Besides the research question, Yin (2009, p. 8) suggests choosing a research design based on “the extent of control the investigator has over actual behavioural events, and the degree of focus on contemporary as opposed to historical events”. The author has no control over the employees’ engagement in KS because, as discussed before, this depends on their own interpretations of such behaviour; also, the researcher is not involved in the organization or projects, so she has no interaction with these employees. With regards to the focus on events, the researcher is interested in KS in AIESEC during the last few years, in its current state, rather than historical processes and behaviours that might have changed already as the organization constantly develops. Having evaluated this research based on the proposed criteria, case study seems to be the most appropriate research design because, according to Yin (2009, p. 15), it more advantageous than others when “a ‘how’ and ‘why’ question is being asked about a contemporary set of events over which the investigator has little or no control”.
Simply put, a case study means that “a particular phenomenon is examined intensively for the light that it can shed on a specific problem or question” (Orum, 2001, p. 1509). In this case, this ‘phenomenon’ is the process of KS and the ‘specific question’ is why it takes place in the organization. Yin (2009, p. 18) to such definition adds the importance of context and the blurry boundaries between this context and the phenomenon. In other words, if KS is investigated in AIESEC, the results obtained will be contingent on the particular circumstances in this organization. Indeed, case study design is different from other designs primarily because of its “focus on a bounded situation or system, an entity with a purpose and functioning parts” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.60). However, it may be argued that other research designs, such as experiment and survey, also can be dependent on the context; however, they differ by other features: in an experiment the research has high control over the context while survey is restricted to several variables which does not allow to gain better understanding of the circumstances (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 146).
2.4.2. The type of case study
In choosing the case study to be investigated, firstly, the access to people to be interviewed or to documents to be reviewed is needed; given this access, the case to be chosen is the one that is “most likely to illuminate research questions” (Yin, 2009, p.
13
26). Indeed, as explained in the introductory chapter, the reasons why the organization has been chosen were closely related to the research question and the accessibility.
Another question could be why only one case study has been chosen when multiple case studies are often advocated as enabling the researcher to improve theoretical arguments by making comparisons and contrasts between several cases (Orum, 2001, p. 1511; Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 63). Yin (2009, pp. 47-49) suggests that a single case study can be more appropriate when it is critical, unique, typical, revelatory, or longitudinal. In this case, the rational probably is the uniqueness of AIESEC. There may be several voluntary project-based organizations that are global, have a long history of constant success, a very strong organizational culture or very young staff; however, the combination of all these characteristics together makes AIESEC a unique context for investigating the motives and challenges for KS. Also, once again a recall to the main purpose of this research needs to be made. Based on her philosophical views, the researcher aims at increasing the understanding of the social reality which is highly dependent on the context. The author maintains that due to limited resources it is more reasonable to get to know social processes in depth in one context rather than to range over a wide set of contexts. To obtain great amount of knowledge is “typically impossible through the examination of a large number of cases” (Orum, 2001, p. 1509-1510).
The focus in case study research can be on different units of analysis such as an organization, a department, or an individual (Orum, 2001, p. 1510; Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 59). In this research, the managers of various AIESEC projects are in the centre of attention. Yin (2009, p. 50) names such case study design ‘embedded’, as opposite to the ‘holistic’ case study design that is concerned with the organization as a whole rather than its subunits. Subunits “often add significant opportunities for extensive analysis, enhancing the insights into the single case”, but sometimes they distract the attention from the holistic aspects and become disadvantageous (Yin, 2009, p. 52). For example, the investigation of the experience possessed by different projects managers can provide more insights and better understanding why they share knowledge; however, in case of too much emphasis on this, the orientation of case study may change from KS in a voluntary project-based organization to KS by voluntary project managers. Actually, the focus on project managers can be justified, especially in the context of the constructivist and interpretivist views that refer to the important roles of social actors in interpreting their own actions. Nevertheless, in the end the researcher needs to return to “the larger unit of analysis” (Yin, 2009, p. 52).
2.4.3. The advantages and implications of cases study design
As already mentioned, the biggest strengths of case study research design are that it allows examining the phenomenon in great detail and in the particular context that is vital for understanding that phenomenon (Orum, 2001, p. 1509; Yin, 2009, p. 18). It provides the conditions to increase the understanding of social situations that are “too complex for survey or experiments” (Yin, 2009, p. 18). Even more, case study design sets “boundaries to the nature of the phenomenon under investigation” (Orum, 2001, p. 1509), i.e. the phenomenon is relatively isolated from other influences. In our case, the choice to investigate the motives to use KS mechanisms in a particular voluntary project-based organization limits the investigation to this particular context and to this
14
particular aspect of KS, so the focus is increased dramatically resulting in more knowledge about the smaller area. The choice to investigate the certain phenomenon in a particular organization also serves as an illustration of the topic (Yin, 2009, p. 18). Sometimes, the investigation may reveal a special case that is exceptional and from which particular lessons can be learnt (Orum, 2001, p. 1510). For instance, it may appear that AIESEC is the example voluntary project-based organization in terms of KS that offer organizations of this type should follow, or vice versa, it may be found that KS is absolutely not efficient in this organization and other organizations need to learn from their mistakes. Finally, the analysis of great amount of information are expected to provide important insights, new theoretical ideas and/or new explanations of the phenomenon that can lead to new research questions (Orum, 2001, p. 1510; Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 147), which is in line with our inductive research approach.
However, as any other research design, case study also has its drawbacks. It is often criticized for the “lack of rigour”, meaning that its implementation is not defined by strict rules and procedures, and the conclusions can be influenced by “equivocal evidence or biased views” (Yin, 2009, p. 14). Another criticism is that the collection of information using cases study research design takes a lot of time and the results are too “massive” (Yin, 2009, p. 15). In order to minimize these shortcomings, in this investigation certain rules for information collection have been set and a particular data analysis and presentation methods chosen, but this will be explained in detail while describing the practical methodology (see Chapter 5).
Nevertheless, the most frequent criticism of case study design is the inability to generalize findings. The proponents of survey or experiment research designs would argue that case study does not permit the examination of the relationships between certain dependent and independent variables, nor does it allows the manipulations of variables (Orum, 2001, p. 1510). It is true that case study does not lead to the generalization of findings about population based on the findings about the case, i.e. “statistical generalization” (Yin, 2009, p. 38). However, as always, it needs to be referred back to the purpose of the research. The case should not be identified with the sample of one, and the goal is “to expand and generalize theories”, not “populations or universes” (Yin, 2009, p. 38). Researchers call this type of generalization “analytic”, implying the comparison do the empirical findings with the existing theory (Yin, 2009, p. 38). Indeed, the goal of this study is to expand the knowledge about KS enablers and barriers in voluntary project-based organizations, but not to conclude that they ones identified from the case study are applicable to all voluntary project-based organizations. As explained before, an open inductive approach is kept throughout this investigation, but the results are evaluated by comparing them with the formulated theoretical framework of reference. So the main concern with the case study research design “lies not in the limited number of empirical units, but in the ability of the researcher to be sensitive to issues of theory development and the gathering of relevant evidence to develop and refine that theory” (Orum, 2001, p. 1512).
2.5. RESEARCH METHOD CHOICE
Research method(s) choice refers to “the way in which a researcher chooses to combine quantitative and qualitative techniques and procedures” (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 151).
15
2.5.1. Qualitative versus quantitative research
Quantitative and qualitative research are similar as they both: generate great amount of information and need to reduce it, seek to answer research questions by “relating data and analysis to the research literature”, and are concerned with variation, frequency, transparency, and errors (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 60). However, they differ a lot as well. The main difference is that quantitative research is associated with “any data collection technique or data analysis procedure that generates or uses numerical data” while in qualitative research non-numerical data is created and handled (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 151). However, the author would like to illustrate how and why the qualitative research is much more suitable to answer the research question and achieve the objectives of this study via the comparisons made by Bryman and Bell (2011, p. 410); the terms used by these authors will be introduced in the quotation marks.
The research philosophy and research approach implies, this can be achieved to increase the understanding of enablers and barriers for KS processes in voluntary project-based organizations is possible only by understanding the views and interpretation of the social reality of the employees involved in these processes in this particular circumstances, i.e. “natural settings” rather than “artificial settings”. So this research is concerned with the “point of view of participants” rather than the “point of view of researcher”, with the “meaning” rather than “behaviour” itself, “process” rather than “static” situation, and “contextual understanding” rather than “generalization”. Instead of being “distant”, the researcher needs to be “close” to project managers in AIESEC and gather “rich, deep” information about the case rather than “hard, reliable data”, so that thorough analysis would result in new insights. Also, although the aim in not to generate a new theory, the inductive research approach is taken to increase the theoretical understanding based on the findings: as explained before, only a reference framework was created, but no pre-defined theoretical hypothesis formulated for testing.
2.5.2. Qualitative interviews
Again keeping in mind the research questions and objectives, the author decided that the most suitable data collection method for this investigation is qualitative interview. The goal is to get the opinions of AIESEC project managers about KS in the organization, more specifically about what facilitates or hinders it, i.e. it is sought “not only to reveal and understand the “what” and the “how” but also to place more emphasis on exploring the “why” (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 321). Such information is closely tied to the individual, particularly to his or her mind, so it cannot be obtained by observing people or reviewing documents, but only by listening to people. Even more, during individual interviews personal contact with the participants can be established because the interviewees can “receive feedback and personal assurance about the way information will be used” (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 324). This is very important because the information shared is very subjective and personal, so trust is an essential component in such investigations. In addition, the interaction and variation are possible. For instance, if the interviewer did not hear or understand well the answer, she can ask for the repetition or clarification. Also, the responses to open questions such as “how/why did you share knowledge in AIESEC projects?” can be followed with requests for more details or examples. Also, if from inertia the respondent starts to answer the question
16
that is much later in the question list, the interviewer can just change its priority. Indeed, the variety of potential questions and flexibility to change their order is a big strength of qualitative interviews. Finally, interviews allow “access to a wider variety of people and situations” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 497). It is very important in this case because the organization is widely geographically dispersed; project managers not only live and work in many different places, but also these places may change quite often.
The term “qualitative interviews” usually is assigned to semi-structured and unstructured interviews (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 320). In semi-structured interviews the interviewer “has a series of questions that are in the general form of an interview schedule but is able to vary the sequence of questions… and ask further questions in response to what are seen as significant replies” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 205). The unstructured interview is very similar, just even more informal and flexible, i.e. instead of predetermined general questions the interviewer has only a list of topics and the “interviewee can talk freely about events, behaviour and beliefs in relation to the topic area” (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 321).
In this research, from the very beginning the researcher had a “fairly clear focus” on the enablers and barriers of KS in voluntary organizations “rather than very general notions of wanting to do research on a topic”, and as the preliminary guiding framework with specific themes was formed, the author already had a “clear idea” that the data analysis will be conducted according to them; all these conditions fit with the recommendations by Bryman & Bell (2011, p. 472) to use semi-structure interviews. Nevertheless, although the researcher had a list of general questions for each topic, in the end she allowed the interviewees to talk freely while guiding the interviews with structuring questions such as “your opinion related to individual characteristics was very interesting, but what about the organizational context?”.
17
3. LITERATURE REVIEW PART 1: KNOWLEDGE AND KS
MECHANISMS
For practical reasons, the literature review will be divided in two parts according to the research sub-objectives: first will be related to the knowledge and KS mechanism while the second specifically to the factors affecting KS. So in this chapter, KS will be defined and put in the context of organizational learning process and knowledge transfer. Also, different typologies of knowledge according to its properties will be explained. Finally, the most wide-spread classifications of KS mechanisms will be discussed, followed by particular examples.
3.1. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AS PART OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING PROCESS
In the introductory chapter, organizational knowledge has been introduced as a key strategic resource. Knowledge as a source for competitive advantage can be explained based on organization‘s learning capabilities: knowledge creation and dissemination mean that constant internal changes occur in the organization, leading to constant improvement (Jerez-Gómez et. al., 2005, p. 716). So organizational learning can be defined as “the capability of an organization to process knowledge - in other words, to create, acquire, transfer, and integrate knowledge, and to modify its behaviour to reflect the new cognitive situation, with a view to improving its performance (Jerez-Gómez et. al., 2005, p. 716). Ajmal and Koskinen (2008, p.12) distinguish three levels in which knowledge can be initiated: individual, when knowledge is created by individuals and transferred to higher organizational levels; group, when knowledge is interchanged within a group; and organizational, when knowledge is spread across the wider organization and changes organizational beliefs and assumptions. Jerez-Gómez et. al. (2005, p. 716) demonstrate their dynamic approach of such movements between the levels (Figure 1): knowledge is acquired by individuals and transferred and integrated at group and organizational levels until collective knowledge is created and embedded in the organizational processes and culture. On the other hand, this collective knowledge also influences what knowledge and how is acquired and shared by individuals because “what an individual learns in an organization greatly depends on what is already known by the other members of the organization”.
18
Figure 1. Organizational learning process (Jerez-Gómez et al., 2005, p. 716)
From the model (Figure 1) it is obvious that the translation of individual to organizational knowledge is impossible without individuals exchanging their knowledge first, the idea proposed by van den Hooff & de Ridder (2004, p. 118). Wang & Noe (2009, p. 116) also support this idea by recognizing the impact of KS between employees on team and organizational level knowledge. According to Fernie et. al. (2003, p. 179), knowledge is primarily held and used by individuals, so its benefits can only be seized through their interaction (Fernie et. al., 2003, p. 179). After all, KS is “mostly about people and adaptations to the social dynamics of the workplace” (Riege, 2005, p. 20) and “the motivations, cognition, and behaviours of individuals and the interaction among those individuals” (Foss et. al., 2009, p.4). So in this paper the focus is on individual knowledge transfer to the group and organization as a whole.
3.2. KS DEFINITION
As explained in the introductory chapter, KS is a key process of KM. Matzler et al. (2007, p. 303) define KS simply as “transferring knowledge from one specific context into another”. van den Hooff and de Ridder (2004, p.118) take a further step and distinguish two sides of KS process: “knowledge donating, communicating to others what one's personal intellectual capital is, and knowledge collecting, consulting colleagues in order to get them to share their intellectual capital”. Similar idea is expressed by Foss et. al. (2009, p. 4) definition: “we define knowledge sharing as the knowledge received by an individual from her colleagues (knowledge received and used by the individual) and knowledge sent by that individual to colleagues (knowledge received and used by her colleagues)”. In other words, it is believed that KS includes both giving (sending, donating) and getting (collecting, receiving) knowledge.
However, Wang & Noe (2010, p. 117), who recently developed the framework for understanding KS research, argue that KS includes only “employees providing knowledge to others”, and that knowledge seeking (“employees searching for knowledge from others”) is the other, separate part of knowledge exchange. Riege (2005, p. 19) adds that the knowledge provider ideally should know “the knowledge purpose, use, needs or gaps of the person receiving the knowledge”. Wang & Noe
19
(2010, p. 117) agree and define KS as “the provision of task information and know-how to help others and to collaborate with others to solve problems, develop new ideas, or implement policies or procedures” (Wang & Noe, 2009, p. 117). In this thesis, the latter definition of KS will be applied, focusing on knowledge giving rather than receiving.
3.3. TYPOLOGY AND PROPERTIES OF KNOWLEDGE
Another point in discussion is what is actually being shared. Various attempts to define knowledge have been reviewed and well summarized by Wang & Noe (2010, p. 117): knowledge is based on information (“a flow of messages”), i.e. knowledge is more than just information because it also includes the know-how; however, due to the lack of practical benefits of separating knowledge from information in KS, many researchers use these terms interchangeably. In this thesis the same approach will be chosen and the definition by Wang & Noe (2010, p. 117) will be adopted: knowledge is the “information processed by individuals including ideas, facts, expertise, and judgments relevant for individual, team, and organizational performance”.
Rather than differentiating between knowledge and information, it seems to be more important to distinguish different types of knowledge because they have an impact on “how easily knowledge can be shared and accumulated, how much and where it is retained and stored, and how easily it flows within and across an organization” (Matzler et al., 2008, p. 303).
In order to understand better these dependences, the typology of knowledge needs to be introduced and explained. The classification of knowledge recognized as the most comprehensive is along two dimensions: the degree of articulation and the degree of aggregation (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002, p. 690). With regards to the first dimension, knowledge can be explicit or tacit. What primarily distinguishes explicit knowledge is that it can be easily shared (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002, p. 690). Explicit knowledge includes everything that can be articulated or codified, for example, facts, concepts, rules, frameworks etc. (Matzler et al., 2008, p. 303; Fernie et. al., 2003, p. 179). On the contrary, tacit knowledge includes capabilities, skills and knowledge that are hard to express and communicate in a formal way; it is because such knowledge is personalized and highly dependent on the context (Fernie et. al., 2003, p. 179; Geisler, 2007, p. 469). Depending on the extent to which knowledge is aggregated, knowledge is classified as individual, i.e. held by one person, and collective, i.e. “embedded in the interactions among a group of people” (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002, p. 690).
The classification along both dimensions gives four classes of knowledge: individual-explicit, that is retrievable from a person; individual-tacit, that is based on person’s experience; collective-explicit, that “embodies registered patents and designs or information stored on databases”; and collective-tacit, that “represents all knowledge embedded in social and institutional practices, systems, workflows and culture” (Riege, 2005, p. 21). The authors, that researched these categories more, gave each of them a more specific name. For example, Spender (1996, p. 52) called them, respectively: conscious, objectified, automatic and collective knowledge, as shown in table 1. In the same table, in brackets, the terms given for each group by Blackler (1995, p. 1030) are shown: embrained, encoded, embodied, and encultured and embedded.
20
Table 1. The taxonomy of knowledge. Created by the author based on (Cabrera
and Cabrera, 2002; Spender, 1996; Blackler, 1995)
Articulation/Aggregation Individual Social/Collective
Explicit Conscious (embrained) Objectified (encoded)
Tacit Automatic (embodied) Collective (encultured and embedded)
Although the distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge is vital considering transferability and KS, knowledge always has elements of both, but not in equal proportions: the most knowledge to be shared is tacit while the explicit knowledge constitutes for only a small fraction (Matzler et al., 2008, p. 303). This implies that tacit KS should attract more researchers’ and practitioners’ attention. Indeed, since the first definition of tacit knowledge, it has been at the centre of attention in terms of searching for ways to capture and share it (Geisler, 2007, p. 468). However, still most of the KM attempts are targeted at the explicit knowledge - the situation that is heavily criticized (Fernie et. al., 2003, p. 179), and tacit KS remains the main challenge of KS practices in organizations (Riege, 2005, p. 20). The reasons are closely related to the properties of this type of knowledge: it is “sticky” (Matzler et al., 2008, p. 303) and hard “to extract from the knower” (Fernie et. al., 2003, p. 180), so difficult to share. Therefore, companies are encouraged to highlight the motives for tacit KS, at the same time informing employees that it is not easy (Riege, 2005, p. 25).
Similarly to any other knowledge, project knowledge can also be classified depending on articulability and embeddedness (Landaeta, 2008, p. 31). Nevertheless, a special type of knowledge, managerial knowledge, is particularly important in project context because it is not enough to store technical and procedural results from projects, but the contexts and processes of how they have been obtained are vital to save as well (Kasvi et. al., 2003, p. 572). Geisler (2007, p. 468) defines managerial knowledge as knowledge about organizational processes, politics, and strategies that managers obtain and develop while working in the organization. Managerial knowledge is often scant and unavailable because managers consider it as “an accumulation of years of investment and learning” and therefore are unwilling to share it with others in the organization (Geisler, 2007, pp. 468-469). Knowledge derived from experience is difficult to codify and share, so ensuring KS and collaboration among team members becomes a big issue for each project manager (Fernie et. al., 2003, p. 178).
Ajmal and Koskinen (2008, p.8) investigating knowledge transfer processes in project-based organizations from the perspective of organizational culture, also refer to Snider and Nissen’s (2003) classification of knowledge depending on the purpose: “knowledge as solution” with the focus on the knowledge transfer to employees at the real time in order to help them to solve problems or enhance operations; “knowledge as experience”, with the focus on capturing and accumulating knowledge for the future
21
use; and “knowledge as socially created” with the focus on knowledge creation and sharing through interpersonal social relationships.
3.4. KM STRATEGIES: CODIFICATION VERSUS PERSONALIZATION
Hansen et. al. (1999, pp. 1-2) found that companies employ two very different KM strategies: codification, where knowledge is codified and stored in databases that are accessible to every employee, and personalization, where knowledge is possessed by its developer and shared through direct person-to-person interaction.
Both of them have advantages and disadvantages. Codification is efficient for storing and transmitting large amounts of knowledge, so there are gains from economies of scale; also, the searcher is not dependent on the creators of the knowledge, i.e. knowledge can be accessed any time by anyone (Hansen et.al., 1999, p. 2; Boh, 2007, p. 30). The main disadvantage of codification strategy is that “it does not allow interactions and customization of solutions to the knowledge seeker’s problems” (Boh, 2007, p. 30). On the contrary, this is the biggest strength of personalization, where through discussions and interpretations information can be restructured and applied to the new context (Boh, 2007, p. 30). However, this cannot happen without knowledge-seeker having information about and access to the knowledge-provider; also, the knowledge-provider may not want to engage in KS because of certain perceived costs and risks such esteem and reputation issues (Boh, 2007, p. 30).
Companies normally choose one dominant KM strategy while the second is used for supporting it (Hansen et.al., 1999, p. 7). The relationship between business model pursued and the choice of KM strategy was found: codification was preferred by the companies that manufacture and sell standardized products, and personalization by the companies offer highly customized services or innovative products (Hansen et.al., 1999, p. 6-7).
Both codification and personalization KM strategies have been recognized and applied in project environments as well (Ruuska & Vartiainen, 2005, p. 374; Boh, 2007, p. 30).
3.5. MECHANISMS FOR KS IN PROJECTS
For effective KM, organizations need to establish mechanisms, tools and procedures by which knowledge can be shared (Kasvi et. al., 2003, p. 572; Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002, p. 689). KS mechanisms in projects can be simply defined as “the means by which individuals access knowledge and information <…> embedded in [other] individuals and groups that will aid in the performance of project tasks” (Boh, 2006, p. 28).
3.5.1. Classification of KS mechanisms in project-based organizations
In order to classify mechanisms for KS in projects, Boh (2007), in addition to codification – personalization dimension, added a new institutionalization - individualization dimension. Institutionalization describes collective socialization tactics that are initiated and encouraged by the organization, so they are pre-defined, formal and structured, and usually “embedded in various organizational routines, artefacts, or organizational structure” (Boh, 2007, p. 31). On the contrary,
22
institutionalization describes individual socialization tactics that take place without organizational intervention; they are unplanned, informal and unstructured (Boh, 2007, p. 32).
Both of them have benefits and drawbacks. Organization normally has more power to encourage the usage of institutionalized mechanisms and they can be accessed by a wider audience in a systematic way; as a result, synergy “in sharing, reusing, discussing and re-interpreting the knowledge” can be achieved; on the other hand, it requires substantial investments in the supporting infrastructure and the specification of focus areas (Boh, 2007, p. 32). The responsiveness and flexibility is the stronger side of individualization KS mechanisms; KS processes can occur informally when and as needed because the organization does not define the concrete areas of KS and the information flows freely (Boh, 2007, p. 31). Nevertheless, only limited amount of people can reach such mechanisms, which is especially a big issue for large and geographically distributed organizations; in addition, KS is highly dependent on the circumstances, i.e. whether the right knowledge will be shared among the right people at the right time (in terms of the needs) (Boh, 2007, p. 31).
Table 2. Framework of KS mechanisms for managing distributed knowledge and
expertise in project-based organization (Boh, W. F., 2007, p. 33)
So Boh (2007), combining the two distinct dimensions, proposed and discussed a framework of four quadrants of different KS mechanisms in project-based organizations, shown in table 2. Individualized-personalization mechanisms facilitate informal KS at the individual level; they are beneficial because people prefer personal interaction over documentation, but individuals need to be aware of the available knowledge sources and its content (Boh, 2007, p. 33). Individualized-codification mechanisms facilitate sharing various artefacts such as project proposals and plans or client reports at the individual level in an informal and ad hoc manner; they enable overcoming time and geographical differences between problems and knowledge provision for their solutions, but quite often knowledge is accessible just to the people who created it or closest project team members (Boh, 2007, p. 33). Institutionalized-codification mechanisms are embedded in the routines and structure of the organization and facilitate sharing of codified expert knowledge making it accessible to everybody through data bases; however, this requires heavy investments in information technologies (Boh, 2007, p. 34). Finally, the institutionalized-personalization mechanisms are also embedded in the routines and structure of the organization, but they are more informal and personal; so experts can share their knowledge with less experienced colleagues (Boh, 2007, p. 34).
Boh (2007, p. 52) suggests that larger and more geographically dispersed organizations should develop and use more institutionalized KS mechanisms while for smaller organizations individualized mechanisms can be more suitable. With regards to
23
codification-personalization dimension, codification KS mechanisms are considered more suitable for organizations that implement similar projects while personalization mechanisms are proposed for unique projects that need more customization (Boh, 2007, p. 52). These recommendations are demonstrate visually in the table 3.
Table 3. Recommendations of different KS mechanisms depending on
organization’s characteristics (Boh, W. F., 2007, p. 36)
3.5.2. Examples of KS mechanisms
In order to have at least a preliminary reference base, some specific examples of KS mechanisms have been searched for in the academic literature.
Table 4. Examples of KS mechanisms in project-based organizations (Boh, 2007, p.
40)
Individualized Institutionalized Personalization
Word of mouth sharing through senior staff; Personal networks; Collaboration tools.
Meetings among high level staff; Project reviews; One senior person coordinating all staffing needs; Having a common project director shared across projects; Cross-staffing across projects; Setting up a community; Support centres; Staff deployment policies.
Codification
Sharing prior project; documents informally; Manuals written voluntarily.
Database; Use of templates; Broadcast emails and forums; Expertise directory; Standardized methodology.
Boh (2007), after modelling his framework for the classification of KS mechanisms in project-bases organizations, have conducted semi-structured interviews with 36 people in research and technical consulting companies. From their descriptions of what KS mechanisms they used, Boh (2007) came up with a set of mechanisms which have also been classified according to the codification-personalization and institutionalization – individualization dimensions. These concrete KS mechanisms are shown in table 4.
24
However, this list of KS mechanisms may be incomplete or specific for the companies or industries investigated; therefore, it needs to be complemented by KS mechanisms suggested by other researchers, in order to expand the reference base.
Table 5. Major KS mechanisms in global R&D organizations (Chai et. al., 2003,
p.707)
For their investigation of what and how KS mechanisms should be used between geographically dispersed plants in multinational companies, Chai et. al. (2003) have summarised KS mechanisms found in management literature in the area of international R&D management. They grouped these mechanisms into eight categories and provided the descriptions of each (see table 5).
Landaeta (2008, p. 36) as methods to transfer knowledge across projects identifies “meetings, special teams, project reviews, mentoring, written messages, project documents, and observation of deliverables and project operations” that “can be facilitated with face-to-face interactions or without face-to-face interactions by communication and information technologies (e.g., multi-media, teleconference, e-mail, on-line chats, databases)”.
25
3.5.3. Managerial KS mechanisms
Previously it was explained that very important type of knowledge in projects is managerial knowledge. Geisler (2007, p. 472) claims that the key to the safeguarding managerial knowledge is “establishing interactions that are embedded in the processes of the organization” rather than improving knowledge systems; consequently, he suggests four informal KS mechanisms: socialization, tutoring, mentoring, and constant reporting.
Fernie et. al. (2003, p. 180), based on exiting literature, recognizes socialization as a vital element for any method of KS because “socialisation as a mechanism to share (not transfer) tacit knowledge finds synergy with others”. Also, these authors claim that knowledge is always a product of social processes, so the interaction among participants should be encouraged.
According to Geisler (2007, p. 473), socialization, tutoring, and mentoring are processes aimed at intensifying the communication and KS between experienced and new managers. Socialization is more related to cultural aspects of the organization; through various activities and procedures new comers learn “the norms and standards of acceptable behaviour and intricacies regarding the personalities and modes of operation of key personnel”; it can be formal or informal such as meetings and conversations with more experienced staff; knowledge transferred includes various stories and widely applicable lessons (Geisler, 2007, p. 473).
On the other hand, tutoring as a KS mechanism can be only formal and integrated in operations and procedures with emphasis on specific issues and problems; also, direct relationships are emphasized (Geisler, 2007, p. 473)
The goal of mentoring is to provide more general guidance over the longer period of time; mentors usually are superiors or colleagues with more greater experience, although may have a similar level of authority; mentors may take up different roles such as teacher, counsellor, friend, and confidant, or, in some cases, simply prepare a successor for a certain position (Geisler, 2007, p. 474).
Continuous reporting should also be targeted at the interaction among participating employees rather than at senior executives, so instead of providing operation descriptions or reports on performance or outcomes, managers should report on their experience, lessons learned and knowledge obtained from important events such as visits or conferences (Geisler, 2007, p. 474).
26
4. LITERATURE REVIEW PART 2: POTENTIAL KS FACILITATORS AND BARRIERS
In the second chapter of literature review, a theoretical framework will be constructed based on the model for understanding KS research, recently developed by Wang & Noe (2010) in order to facilitate the empirical investigation. This model has been chosen as a guideline for this investigation because it includes all the most important and most researched areas related to organizational and individual factors in KS while at the same time is not encumbered with technological elements that are out of the scope of this research. Wang & Noe (2010) found that the elements of the five identified areas (organizational context, interpersonal and team characteristics, cultural characteristics, individual characteristics, and motivational factors) influence KS directly or indirectly through motivational factors. The model (Figure 2) shows which topics have already been investigated (shaded boxes) and which topics need future research attention (boxes with dotted lines). Some areas are shown as overlapping, meaning that the research on them has been carried out, but not sufficiently.
In the following sections, the literature review for each of the five areas will be provided. The aim of this review is to form a reference base for the inductive investigation, so no significant differentiation will be made between whether the idea is based on the theoretical basis or empirical investigation, and whether the factor affects KS intentions or behaviour because, as shown in the model, perceptions related to KS and actual KS behaviour are closely related and in the end bring the same result. Also, the relevant research on KS has been done mostly in the organizational context, so the few exceptions in project environment will be indicated in the text accordingly.
27
28
Figure 2. A model for KS research (Wang & Noe, 2010, p. 116)
4.1. ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT
4.1.1. Management support
Many investigations support the proposition that in the presence of the perceptions that top management support KS, the perceptions about a positive KS culture and employees’ willingness to engage in these processes are much higher; also, both the quality and quantity of shared knowledge increase (Cabrera et. al., 2006, p. 260; Lin, 2007d, p. 326; Connelly & Kelloway, 2003, p. 298; Kulkarni et. al., 2006, p. 340). For example, if management invests heavily in KM technology, employees may accept it as a sign of management commitment to KS and also get involved in KS more intensively (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003, p. 295). Kulkarni et. al. (2006, p. 340) to the importance of leadership commitment for KS adds other “organizational factors involving people”: supervisor and co-worker support, meaning the encouragement provided by these people to a knowledge worker in KS activities. McDermott and O’Dell (2001, p. 78) reinforce this latter idea, at the same time stressing the support coming from immediate managers.
With regards to projects, the direct relationship between the commitment of top management for project KM activities and project KM effectiveness has been found as well (Lindner & Wald, 2010, p. 10). This commitment should include providing resources for KM, motivating project team members to engage in project KM, and, very important, building a supportive project organization and delegating responsibilities for project KM to the project leader (Lindner & Wald, 2010, p. 10).
So a tentative proposition is that management should “commit to promoting informal and formal networks and knowledge-oriented management practices” in organizations (Kim & Lee, 2006, p. 380). However, quite often the opposite situation is prevailing, making the lack of management support and vague directions one of the barriers for KS (Riege, 2005, p. 26).
4.1.2. REWARDS AND INCENTIVES
Many researchers have investigated the influence of rewards and incentives on KS; however, they got mixed results. Kim and Lee (2006, p. 379) found that the level of performance-based reward systems was positively related to KS both in public and private organizations. Yang & Wu (2008, p. 1132) believe that as long as the offered rewards outweigh potential losses of an individual, the incentive system may influence KS behaviours by encouraging employees to interact with their external environments. The findings of the study of R&D engineers’ KS behaviour indicate the direct influence on KS of reward power, i.e. employees engage in KS because managers give them incentives such as better salary, benefits and promotion (Liao, 2008, p.170).
On the other hand, some researchers claim that incentives and rewards have no or limited influence in terms of encouraging KS, or that their impact can be indirect (Cabrera et. al., 2006, p. 260; Lin, 2007c, p. 143; Chang et. al., 2007, p. 290). Others
29
propose that the effect depends on certain contingencies. For example, Kankanhalli et al. (2005, p. 131) found that although rewards have a positive contribution to KS only in the presence of identification with the organization, and on the contrary, if knowledge sharer does not have similar interests as the organization, rewards will not motivate them either. Likewise, O’Dell and Grayson (1998, p. 168) assert that rewards will not have much influence if KS is not “inherently rewarding, celebrated, and supported by the culture”. The effect of rewards for KS may also depend on the timing: extrinsic incentives can create enthusiasm at the beginning, but over time benefits diminish and no great effect is achieved (Chang et. al., 2007, p. 290; O’Dell and Grayson, 1998, p. 169).
From a different perspective, the effect on KS of the absence rather the presence of rewards and incentives is considered as well. According to Husted and Michailova (2002, p. 21), KS needs to be built “into the expectation of the individual and reflected in the reward mechanism”; so the lack of incentives for sharing knowledge can become a potential KS barrier (Husted & Michailova, 2002, p. 26). Yao et. al. (2007, p. 66) survey in public administration sector in Hong Kong also supports this idea: “more than 70 per cent of our respondents strongly agreed or agreed that lack of incentives/rewards were barriers to KS”.
Other researchers concentrated more on the influence of the different types of rewards. Some scholars differentiate between extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, with general preference for the intrinsic ones such as peer recognition rather than monetary rewards (Lin, 2007 c, p. 143; O’Dell and Grayson, 1998, p. 168). Bock et al. (2005, p. 98) claim that extrinsic rewards, instead of encouraging favourable attitudes towards KS, can discourage them.
Evaluating rewards influence on KS, Ferrin and Dirks (2003, p. 19) distinguish between cooperative rewards, that are based on joint performance, and competitive rewards, that are based only on the individual performance. Cooperative rewards should encourage employees to share knowledge more because this would lead to joint success, while competitive rewards, on the contrary, may motivate individuals to withhold information in order to maximize one’s performance at the expense of others (Ferrin and Dirks, 2003, p. 21). Similarly, Quigley et. al. (2007, p. 74) maintains that “group-based incentive structures highlight group member interdependencies, thus motivating potential knowledge providers to engage in cooperative behaviours such as sharing knowledge in pursuit of higher group performance and greater rewards”. Additionally, Siemsen et. al. (2007, p. 1546) found that individual and group incentives may complement each other in strengthening KS: while individual incentives help to increase the productivity of knowledge receiver via KS, group incentives ensure that at least part of this increased productivity boosts the realized incentives of knowledge provider, motivating the recipient to share knowledge as well.
Another consideration is whether rewards should be given regularly or on the one-time basis. Yang & Wu (2008, p. 1154) claim that rewarding employees for each KS activity is more effective than encourage them by fixed periodic rewards because these may promote opportunistic behaviour and reduce KS.
4.1.3. Organizational structure
30
Researchers maintain that formal and hierarchical organizational structure may hinder KS because it restricts communication and collaboration and discourages initiatives of inter-unit exchange (Adenfelt & Lagerström, 2006, p.197; Kim & Lee, 2006, pp. 372 - 373). Investigating five public and five private sector organizations in South Korea, Kim and Lee (2006, p. 379) found that there is a negative relationship between employees’ perceptions that their organization is highly centralized and their perceptions of KS capabilities. Departmental structure can be a barrier for KS because different business units, divisions or functions are orientated primarily towards their own achievements and rewards and therefore they are not willing to share knowledge that may provide them competitive advantage over other organizational units; consequently, this hampers KS and sub-optimizes the whole organization (O’Dell and Grayson, 1998, p. 157). Also, separate departments may experience the so called ‘not-invented-here’ syndrome: resistance to use knowledge obtained from outsiders or other organizational units because employees think that it is more prestigious to create own knowledge or because they do not trust the quality of the incoming knowledge and do not have possibility to validate it; specifically in projects, team members may think that they have a ‘monopoly’ of knowledge in the field and therefore do not accept new ideas from elsewhere (O’Dell & Grayson, 1998, p. 157; Michailova & Husted, 2003, p. 70).
Consequently, it suggested that wishing to facilitate KS, managers should de-emphasize the importance of positions and seniority in the organizational structure and promote flexibility and stimulate collaboration and communication among separate organizational units (Kim & Lee, 2006, p. 379; Wang & Noe, 2010, p. 119).
One more important aspect of organizational structure is whether and how job roles and responsibilities are defined. Job design refers to “deciding on the actual structure of jobs, that is, identifying the relevant tasks and activities and allocating them over employees in a way that allows the organization to reap benefits from specialization, as well as bundling tasks in jobs so as to take into account possible synergies between tasks” (Foss et. al., 2009, p. 5). Foss et. al. (2009, p. 7) found that three job characteristics positively influence employees’ motivation to engage in KS: autonomy, meaning that an employee has freedom and discretion to decide upon the timing and processes of task implementation, task identity, meaning that an employee can implement a task from the beginning to the end, and feedback, meaning that an employee receives direct and clear information about their performance implementing the task (Foss et. al., 2009, p. 32).
Cabrera and Cabrera (2002, p. 689) support that idea of increasing the level of autonomy in job definitions in order to manage knowledge in the organization effectively. And although Cabrera et. al. (2006, p. 260) did not find a direct correlation between job autonomy and overall KS, they discovered a significant relationship between autonomy and self-efficacy; therefore, the authors think that autonomy may have an indirect impact on KS (Cabrera et. al., 2006, p. 260)
4.1.4. Organizational culture and climate
Dennison (1996), noted in (Bock et. al., 2005, p.89), maintains that organizational climate and organizational culture are similar as they both “address the creation and influence of social contexts in organizations” but also are different in terms of
31
perspectives: climate refers to the situation “at a point in time and its link to the thoughts, feelings, and behaviours of organizational members” while culture is considered to have evolved over time and therefore is “rooted in history, collectively held, and sufficiently complex to resist attempts at direct manipulation”.
Both organizational climate and organizational culture has been found to have influence on KS. Bock et al. (2005, p. 99) found that three organizational climate factors: “fairness (a trusting climate), innovativeness (a climate that is tolerant of failure and within which information freely flows), and affiliation (a climate characterized by pro-social norms)” have strong impact on KS via the formation of sharing norms while the direct influence is also positive, although less strong. Consequently, Bock et al. (2005, p. 90) propose that the organizational climate favourable for KS would be the one that emphasizes trust among employees, tolerance for mistakes, and openness and free information flow. The list of positive characteristics can be extended by adding the focus on cooperative climate instead of individual competition (Willem & Scarbrough, 2006, p. 1363).
Organizational culture influences KS in several ways: it forms the assumptions about what knowledge is most valuable, it mediates relationships between individual and organizational knowledge, and it shapes the context for and processes of communication and KS (De Long & Fahey, 2000, p. 125-126). McKinnon et. al. (2003, p. 28), based on their findings in organizations in Taiwan, propose that in order to promote KS, an organizational culture should focus on innovation which “comprises willingness to experiment, not constrained by many rules, taking advantage of opportunities, and being innovative and risk taking”. Constant et al. (1996, p. 121) even talk about the ‘culture of good citizenship’, in which individuals would share knowledge because they want to support their community but not because they are forced to do so. Other researchers suggest the need for the culture which emphasizes trust. For example, Kankanhalli et. al. (2005), testing their theoretical model to explain electronic knowledge repositories usage by knowledge contributors, found that such culture reduce the negative impact on KS caused by perceived costs. Gold et al. (2001, p. 189) say that trust and openness are corporate values that are widely recognised as promoting KS; therefore, they should be explicitly stated and communicated throughout the entire organization (Gold et al., 2001, p. 189).
Some research on the relationship between organizational culture and KS has already been done in project environment as well. From the case study of the transnational project with units and members in several countries, Adenfelt and Lagerström (2006, p.197) concluded that in a project as a temporary organization, the appointed individuals are invaluable because they are the ones that create knowledge culture and related values; however, a lot of effort is needed to create trust and encourage cooperation amongst the geographically dispersed members. Lindner and Wald (2010, p. 10) conducted a survey among 8000 members and other affiliated persons of the German Association for Project Management and found that positive knowledge culture encourages individuals in temporary organizations to share knowledge and can compensate for the lack of organizational routines and organizational memory; knowledge culture is also the most important factor for explaining the effectiveness of
32
project knowledge management. These researchers also found that knowledge culture is reinforced if informal communication takes place, if there is tolerance for mistakes, if positive project culture exists and if the top management support KS (Lindner & Wald, 2010, p. 10). In their conceptual paper about the knowledge transfer processes in project-based organizations, Ajmal and Koskinen (2008) came up with conclusions that only transferring of knowledge is not sufficient for effective KM in projects; rather, it is vital to create and foster organizational culture that facilitates KM processes; however, this can be challenging because several different organizational and professional cultures need to be combined into one project culture (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008, p. 13).
This last insight comes in line with the idea of subcultures as KS barrier proposed by De Long and Fahey (2000), who developed a framework to assist managers and researchers in understanding how and why organizational culture hinders KM. They explain that besides the overall culture, organizations often also have subcultures that “consist of distinct sets of values, norms, and practices exhibited by specific groups” that differ, for example, by functional or geographical areas; these differences between cultures lead to the differences in defining knowledge and cause miscommunication and conflict between different groups (De Long and Fahey, 2000, p. 117).
However, it is not suggested that organizational culture has to be changed to facilitate KS; rather it is more about designing and implementing KM in accordance with already existing culture: “visibly demonstrating the importance of KS and building on the invisible core values” (McDermott & O’Dell, 2001, p. 84). Indeed, the main reason for KM failures seems to be “the lack of a clear connection between the KM strategy and overall company goals”; this could be due to the difficulty of evaluating KS practices and the lack of KS barrier identification (Riege, 2005, p. 18).
4.1.5. Leadership characteristics
Srivastava et. al. (2006, p. 1246) found that empowering leadership positively affects KS. The authors define empowering leadership as giving more responsibility and autonomy to subordinates, which in turn raise the level of their intrinsic motivation; the examples include: “leading by example, participative decision making, coaching, informing, and showing concern” (Srivastava et. al., 2006, p. 1239). In other words, the role of the leader in KS is to make it happen (Srivastava et. al., 2006, p. 1241).
4.2. INTERPERSONAL AND TEAM CHARACTERISTICS
Not much research has been conducted on KS in terms of interpersonal and team characteristics (Wang & Noe, 2010. p.119), but some influences can be discussed.
4.2.1. Team characteristics and processes
de Vries et. al. (2006, p. 127) studied the influence of team communication styles on KS and found that if team members are agreeable and extravert, they are more willing to share their knowledge with other members. The authors explain that agreeableness creates trust in information receivers and increases their willingness to share knowledge in return, including other team members, which may result in virtuous cycle of increased KS within the team (de Vries et. al., 2006, p. 128). Similarly, the talkativeness
33
and enthusiasm of extraverts are likely to engender motivation and effort of communication partners to share their own knowledge (de Vries et. al., 2006, p. 128).
4.2.2. Diversity
Ojha (2005) investigated the impact of team demography on KS in software project teams in the Indian context and found that demographic variables, except organizational tenure and to some extent mother tongue of team members, do not have an effect on KS in teams; however, some demographic variables have negative impact if considered relatively to the group. In particular, married individuals when the majority of team members are single, and women in a group consisting mostly of men are less likely to share knowledge, probably because they participate less in non-work related activities and therefore have less bonds with team mates (Ojha, 2005, p. 67).
An investigation of undergraduate Business and Engineering students showed that socially isolated team members participated in discussions more, but they focused more on the contribution of their unique knowledge rather than on other’s unique knowledge; possible explanation is that socially isolated members wanted to increase other members’ perception of their usefulness (Thomas-Hunt et. al., 2003, p. 473). Nevertheless, socially connected members evaluated them less favourably than other socially connected members (Tomas-Hunt et. al., 2003, p. 474). It could be that socially connected members prefer to focus on maintaining their social connections by contributions of knowledge common with that socially connected members rather than to share their unique knowledge; in such a way, the presence of socially isolated people can also hinder KS of the rest within heterogeneous groups (Tomas-Hunt et. al., 2003, p. 475)
4.2.3. Social networks
Strong ties among individuals within social networks can be considered as a facilitator for KS (Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Chiu et al., 2006). Opposite to weak ties, strong ties mean that individuals are close emotionally and interact frequently which is beneficial because such relationships create social support and trust (Perry-Smith, 2006, p. 86). Investigating virtual communities, Chiu et al. (2006, p. 1883) found that strong social ties increase the quantity of KS, and although no direct influence of social interaction was found on knowledge quality, the authors explain that it might be because this influence is indirect, via trust. Reagans and McEvily (2003) investigated the network effect on knowledge transfer in a contract research and development firm. Their results also confirmed that knowledge can be transferred easier if the social ties are strong rather than weak (Reagans & McEvily, 2003, p. 262). Also, individuals are more likely to continue their contributions if expect that participating in a web-based professional community will help them to maintain and reinforce their social ties (Chen, 2007, p. 465).
On the other hand, if there are no enough contacts and interactions between knowledge providers and knowledge recipients, because for example, they do not work together in one team, KS might also not take place or be of less quantity and quality (Riege, 2005, p. 24).
34
4.2.4. Team development stage
Survey study in large new product development projects (Bakker et. al., 2006, p. 603) showed that the longer team members have been together, the more likely they are to share knowledge with each other because the level of cooperation increases and KS networks are better developed over time.
4.3. CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS
4.3.1. Collectivistic-individualistic and vertical – horizontal culture
Moeller and Svahn (2004) suggest that KS may depend on cultural dimensions such as individualism-collectivism and vertical-horizontal. According to these authors (Moeller and Svahn, 2004, p. 222), Triandis (1995, 1998) has defined individualism as “a cultural pattern consisting of loosely linked individuals who view themselves as independent with their own preferences, needs, rights, and contracts” while in collectivism individuals are closely related, consider themselves belonging to the group, and their motivation stems from the norms, duties, and obligations. The implications for KS sharing are that collectivists are more used to put information in context and are more comfortable transferring tacit knowledge while individualists tend to focus more on explicit knowledge and are more concerned with rationality; also, collectivists are more likely to communicate more within a group while individualists can communicate easily with anyone both inside and outside the organization (Moeller and Svahn, 2004, p. 222).
In vertical cultures individuals see themselves socially different from others, so they easily accept authority and related privileges, while in horizontal cultures people consider themselves very similar to others, so they support equality (Bhagat et al., 2002, p. 209). In vertical cultures KS can be obstructed by the hierarchical composition of the organization because superiors have an exceptional access to valuable information and knowledge from external sources and can decide when and how it should be disseminated; on the contrary, in horizontal cultures there are less such barriers and communication flows both from top to bottom and from bottom to top (Bhagat et al., 2002, p. 209).
4.3.2. The characteristics of national culture
According to Riege (2005, p. 24) employees’ national culture, widely known as “an interrelated set of values, practices and symbols, that are learned and shared by individuals and whose meanings provide orientation to members of an organisation”, can possibly impede KS; however, based on his extensive literature review on barriers for KS, he claims that not much research has been done on the national cultures’ influence on KS.
An example could be the study of Husted and Michailova (2002), in which they discovered that certain national and cultural characteristics can hinder KS processes. In particular, they found that the Russian people are afraid of making mistakes and therefore they resist to reflect upon their activities; also, the result-orientation and high competition among department’s reduces the likeliness of their collaboration; finally,
35
strong emphasis on hierarchical differences impedes KS within the company (Husted and Michailova, 2002, p. 26).
And although it can be argued that national culture and language barriers may be not so important at local level, they definitely require managers’ attention when information needs to be shared among subsidiaries across the national borders (Riege, 2005, p. 24).
4.4. INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS
Not much research has been done on the role of individual personality or dispositions in KS (Wang & Noe, 2010, p.120), but some relationships have been found already.
4.4.1. Education, work experience
The more education and work experience employees gain, the more they recognize that their knowledge belongs to the organization; consequently, their attitudes towards KS are more positive (Constant et al., 1994, p. 404). Sveiby & Simons (2002, p.432) also agree that climate favourable for KS is likely to improve with the level of education and managerial role. Also, it is suggested that intentions for KS are positively related to the competence and confidence in doing this (Cabrera et al., 2006, p. 260; Lin, 2007c, p. 144). This also includes the positive relationship between the computer skills and willingness to use KMS (share information in an electronic media environment) (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2000, p. 145).
4.4.2. Personality
Other researchers found that KS depends on the personality traits. For example, Matzler et al. (2007, p. 310) recommends that: employees who score high on conscientiousness, i.e. individuals who are “dutiful, dependable, reliable, responsible, organized, hardworking, and achievement-oriented” (Matzler et al., 2007, p. 305), should be assigned to manage databases because they are more willing to share codified knowledge; employees who score high on agreeableness should transfer knowledge between teams in person because they are altruistic and sympathetic; and employees who score high on openness should be responsible for the dissemination of knowledge within the team. Similarly, Cabrera et al. (2006, p. 245) examined openness to experience and found its positive influence on self-report of knowledge exchange. Individuals open to experience are very curious and are motivated to explore new things; therefore, they seek to know the ideas and insights of others (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002, p. 689).
4.4.3. Self-efficiency
The results of Cabrera et al. (2006, p.260) showed a strong relationship between role-breadth self-efficacy and self-reports of knowledge management behaviour; referring to Parker (1998), these authors suggest how to increase self-efficacy: to hire proactive people with a high self-esteem and intrinsic motivation, and to listen to the existing staff and encourage them to speak (Cabrera et al., 2006, p.260).
36
3.4.4. Perceptions
KS can be hindered by employees’ perception that knowledge is a source of power; in other words, the possession of valuable knowledge is related to an improved position in the organization while KS is regarded as weakening employee’s corporate position (O’Neill & Adya, 2007, p. 430; Riege, 2005, p.25). Employees are afraid that if they share their unique knowledge, they might lose their job. This usually happens because of unclear directions and intentions of top management towards KS (Riege, 2005, p.25).
4.5. MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS
4.5.1. Beliefs of knowledge ownership
Researchers found that when employees believe that knowledge belongs to them rather than to organization they were more willing to share it, probably because of more personal satisfaction (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2000, p. 145). Employees have different reasons for sharing information products and expertise: for example, they would share a computer program because it is organizational property, but they would share their own experience if they see it personally beneficial (Constant et al., 1994, p. 418). Indeed, it was found that people are eager to share their knowledge more than a product, but only if they consider it owned by them (Constant et al., 1994, pp. 404, 418).
4.5.2. Perceived personal benefits
There are no doubts that people are more motivated to engage in KS when they believe that they benefit from that. Personal benefits can include increased self-esteem and self-respect, improved reputation and social status within the social group, also positive feeling of enjoyment, satisfaction, sociability, commitment or just of 'doing the right thing' (Constant et al., 1996, p.121; Wasko & Faraj, 2000, p. 170; Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002, p. 695; Lin, 2007 c, p. 143). However, sometimes employees fail to see or understand these personal benefits from KS which can hinder the process (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002, p. 688).
4.5.3. Perceived value of knowledge
Wang & Noe (2010, p. 121), referring to (Chiu et al., 2006; Siemsen et al., 2007; Wasko & Faraj, 2000) suggest that there can be a stronger relationship between KS and employees’ perception of knowledge usefulness for others than between KS and perceived personal benefits. Jarvenpaa & Staples (2000, p. 145) found that people used electronic media for sharing information more if they believed that “computer based information systems provide valuable information in an effective way”. On the other hand, if the uncertainty about knowledge value to others can become a serious KS barrier: ignorance of both knowledge provider and knowledge seeker results in the absence of KS (Riege, 2005, p. 25).
4.5.4. Perceived costs
37
Employees’ motivation to share knowledge is negatively affected by the perceived costs. Probably the most important perceived cost is the vulnerability, i.e. employees feel that if they reveal their insights in specific context through KS, they would lose a possibility to achieve or maintain their competitive position; in order to overcome this barrier, it is suggested to include contribution to building strategic capabilities in the performance evaluation (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002, p. 698).
Many authors (O’Dell & Grayson, 1998, p. 172, Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002, p. 688) recognize KS as a time-consuming activity; normally very busy with other tasks, employees consider time devoted to KS as an opportunity cost. Logically, the more time information coding and sharing requires, the less willing people are to do that (Kankanhalli et al., 2005, p. 134).
4.5.5. Justice
Organizational justice can differentiated as “distributive justice which reflects the perceived fairness of the outcome that employees receive, while procedural justice is concerned with the perceptions of fairness about procedures used to determine those outcomes” (Lin, 2007b, p. 415). Through experiments with students in Taiwan, Lin (2007b, p. 421) found that the influence of justice on tacit KS was positive but indirect: both distributive and procedural justice had an impact via organizational commitment, and distributive justice alone via trust in co-workers.
4.5.6. Interpersonal trust
Trust can be defined as person‘s willingness to be vulnerable on others because she believes in their benevolence (or good intent, generosity) and therefore is not afraid to endanger her own reputation, or because she believes in colleagues’ competence and therefore feels confident that the other person is worth listening to and learning from; both these forms of interpersonal trust are acknowledged as potential KS facilitators because trust increases overall knowledge exchange and makes it less costly (Kankanhalli et. al., 2005, p. 117; Abrams et. al., 2003, p. 65; Chowdhury, 2005, p. 321).
However, Bakker et al. (2006, p. 603) argues that the effect of trust on KS is more salient because of its absence rather than its presence; trust may be a prerequisite for KS, the lack of which would impede KS, but it does not positively influence KS per se: higher levels of trust do not lead to more KS than lower levels of trust. Indeed, it is widely acknowledged that the lack of trust or distrust has a negative impact on KS: most employees are unlikely to engage in KS without trust, and their willingness to share knowledge decreases with the lack of trust (Riege, 2005, p.25; Bakker et. al., 2006, p. 603; Willem & Scarbrough, 2006, p. 1363).
Recognizing the importance of trust in KS processes and the need to increase it, Abrams et. al., (2003) have conducted more than 40 interviews in 20 organizations to identify the ways that promote trust in KS context: promoted behaviours include acting with discretion, being consistent between word and action, ensuring frequent, rich and collaborative communication, and ensuring that decisions are fair and transparent;
38
recommended practises involve common vision and language, accountability for trust, personal connections, and disclosure of one‘s drawbacks related to expertise.
Researchers also talk about the knowledge providers’ trust as reciprocity, i.e. expectations that others will follow them and participate more intensively in KS (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002, p. 695). Indeed, the study of Lin (2007 c, p. 143) showed that reciprocal benefits significantly influence employee attitudes and intentions towards KS. Bock et al. (2005, p. 99) also claim that the anticipated reciprocity is the primary driver of individual attitudes toward KS. However, Kankanhalli et. al. (2005, p. 131) argue that reciprocity is a motivator to contribute to electronic knowledge repositories only if the pro-sharing norms are weak while having little influence when these norms are strong.
4.5.6. Individual attitudes
As indicated in the model (Wang & Noe, 2010, Figure 2), research on the influence of individual attitudes towards KS needs further development, but some investigations have already been made.
Several researchers propose that organizational commitment has positive influence on KS (Constant et al., 1996, p. 121; Lin, 2007a, p. 468; Cabrera et. al., 2006, p. 260), while the results of survey in five Dutch companies also support this effect on knowledge donating, specifically (van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004, p. 126). Organizational commitment can be defined as “an attachment to or identification with the organization” (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990, noted in Lin, 2007a, p. 459). It is explained that individuals who identify themselves with the organization are also more willing to contribute to achieving organizational goals by improving organization’s functioning and performance, so they engage more in group work, collaboration and KS (van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004, p. 126; Lin, 2007a, p. 459). Constant et al. (1996, p. 121) add that such employees are “likely to be sensitive to the needs of help seekers and to adjust their advice to the requirements of those asking for help”. Looking from the opposite perspective, the lack of organizational commitment is likely to cause low KS as shown in the conceptual model of tacit KS evaluated by using data from employees in Taiwan (Lin, 2007b, p. 421).
Finally, independent of organizational commitment, KS can be increased also by the attitude that this process is “usual, correct, and socially expected workplace behaviour” (Constant et al., 1994, p. 404). If employees believe that to share knowledge is “the right thing to do”, naturally they will do that more.
4.6. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF POTENTIAL KS FACILITATORS AND BARRIERS
From the literature review above, a theoretical framework of potential KS facilitators and barriers has been developed (see Table 6). The positive influence of the factor is shown as “+” while the negative as “-”. Also, in the case of positive influence, the lack of that factor is most likely to pose a barrier for KS. The same framework is provided in Appendix 1, but complemented by the list of authors who support each of the relationships.
39
Table 6. Potential KS facilitators and barriers. Created by the author based on the
literature review.
1. Organizational context Top management, supervisors' and co-workers' support + Rewards and incentives +/- Formal, hierarchical, departmental organizational structure - Organizational culture emphasizing trust, openness, tolerance for mistakes, innovation
+
KM strategy alignment with the existing organizational strategy and culture + Empowering leadership + 2. Interpersonal and team characteristics Agreeable and extravert team communication styles + Minorities & socially isolated team members - Strong social ties + Longer-lasting team work + 3. Cultural characteristics Collectivism + Vertical culture - Afraid of making mistakes - Result-orientation and high competition - Emphasis on hierarchical differences - 4. Individual characteristics Education, Work experience, Competence + Personality traits: Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness + Self-efficiency + Job design that provides an employee with autonomy, task identity and feedback + Perceiving knowledge as power - 5. Motivational factors Belief that knowledge is owned by employee + Perceived benefits + Perceived value of knowledge + Perceived costs (vulnerability, time) - Distributive and procedural justice + Trust in others' benevolence and competence +/- Expectations of reciprocity + Organizational commitment + Positive individual attitudes to KS + Openness to innovations +
40
5. PRACTICAL METHODOLOGY
In the theoretical methodology, various research choices or aspects have been introduced and justified: constructivist-interpretivist philosophy, inductive research approach with deductive elements, case study research design and its implications, and qualitative research method, i.e. semi-structured interview. In this chapter, the practical methodology will be discussed in detail: how the respondents for the interviews were selected, how the interviews were conducted, how the material collected was processed and analysed. Finally, it will be explained how the credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability of this study has been enhanced.
5.1. THE COLLECTION OF EMPIRICAL MATERIAL
As mentioned before, qualitative research is criticized for the lack of transparency which is quite often related to the collection of empirical material, i.e. it is argued that “it is sometimes more or less impossible to discern from researchers’ accounts of their methods either how their interviewees were selected or how many there were of them” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 489). Seeking to deflect this criticism, the respondent selection decisions in this investigation will be discussed in detail.
5.1.1. Respondent type
To start with, it is very important to notice that before making the choice of the respondent selection technique, the type of the respondents wanted was purposely defined.
The target was the managers of AIESEC projects at national and/or international level because such projects are of bigger scope and involve larger and more diverse project management teams, and, based on the author’s personal knowledge, PMs are usually accountable to the representatives of all organizational levels: local, national and international. Consequently, there is a greater possibility that PMs are more familiar with and involved in the KS processes with regards to the whole organization.
Another condition was the diversity of the respondents. The author sought to find PMs of the different types of projects in terms of the topic, activities, participants, implementation place and other project characteristics. Also, projects could be on-going, recently finished or completed few years ago. Finally, the author preferred that respondents had diverse experience in AIESEC and/or outside the organization so that they had a wider perspective on the matter. The diversity criterion is closely related to the research objectives of this thesis: to obtain a variety of perceptions on what may encourage or hinder KS in voluntary project-based organizations rather than to generalize what affects KS in AIESEC.
Finally, it has been chosen to implement qualitative interviews with the inductive approach (see Chapter 2); therefore, respondents needed to be willing to participate in a long interview and to talk openly about their experience.
41
5.1.2. Respondent selection
Although it may seem that the investigation of all respondents, defined in the last section, is always superior to the investigation of some of them, the latter option may be advocated for the “higher overall accuracy” because having a smaller amount of cases permits to devote more resources for the collection, verification and analysis of the material gathered (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 212). This is especially important in this research because as highlighted already many times, the purpose is to gain a rich understanding of KS processes in AIESEC. Consequently, it is better to collect more data from a smaller number of project managers and to make thorough analysis than to talk with many people and obtain very superficial information. Having the goal to generalize the findings to theory, the “validity, understanding and insights” obtained from the empirical material will depend more on the “data collection and analysis skills” than on the number of respondents interviewed (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 234).
Firstly, the preliminary list of various current and previous AIESEC employees was created based on the personal contacts, AIESEC database (2011 b), and public profiles in social networks online. 177 emails have been sent out (with a failure of delivery of 5), informing about the research topic and objectives, as recommended by Bryman and Bell (2011, p. 473). Also, people were asked for the contacts of the type of respondents in demand because from previous personal experience the author knew that AIESEC employees usually know each other from national and international conferences as well as from cross-function or cross-country team work. The response rate was not expected to be high because most of the emails were AIESEC workplace emails that may be not checked any more. Nevertheless, 46 people replied: 5 qualified for the research themselves, but the majority were recent recruits, in other than PM positions, or PM of local projects, so they provided the contacts of others that were contacted with a similar message. The interviews were started at once with the individuals who fitted in the pre-defined profile and expressed willingness to participate. Quite quickly more people meeting the requirements responded because the newly provided contacts were more targeted and up-to-date. The interviews were carried out with the people who were available as early as possible until the sufficient amount of interviews has been done to provide valuable insights about KS processes in AIESEC.
Based on the existing research literature, it may be concluded that a combination of two main respondent selection techniques were used in this investigation: snowball and self-selection. First individuals contacted provided more contacts of other people, who in turn suggested other employees, and the chain continued creating the “snowball” effect until the intended amount of people were found (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 192; Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 240). At the same time, the research was widely publicized, and the individuals who responded were invited to participate, meaning that the self-selection took place (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 241). Both of these techniques are “non-probability” methods because some units have a bigger chance to be selected (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 176; Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 213).
The suitability of snowball and self-selection respondent selection techniques for this research can be supported by the framework proposed by Saunders et. al. (2009, p. 234), which consists of the guiding questions and helps to choose the most appropriate techniques for the specific research. The author would like to explain how this
42
framework can be applied to this research. The answer to the question whether it is impossible to collect data about all the cases is negative because the number of the project managers of the type defined is hard or even impossible to identify: as explained in the introductory chapter, the staff turnover in AIESEC is very high, also some projects are being continued or finished each year, while others are started from the scratch. Neither there is an intention for statistical generalization, nor for the representativeness of the selected cases. If the purpose of the study was limited to only exploratory, the most appropriate way to select respondents for this investigation would be self-selection sampling (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 234). However, the author also wants to describe what KS mechanisms are used by AIESEC project managers and to explain this behaviour, which leads to the next question in the framework: whether the “individual cases are difficult to identify” (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 234). This is not easy to do due to the changes in AIESEC in terms of people and projects, as mentioned before. In such case, Saunders et. al. (2009, p. 234) propose to use snowball method for respondent selection.
Although “non-probability” methods receive some criticism, it seems that in the end the issue that snowball sampling may lead to a homogeneous sample (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 240) was not apparent: the sample obtained was diverse in terms of countries, types of projects, and management teams. Also, neither the author knew the final respondents personally, nor they were recommended by each other. Besides, the advantage of self-selection was achieved: the interviewees showed interest in the topic and devoted sufficient time for long in-depth interviews (Saunders et. al., 2009, p.241). It is especially important in this research because AIESEC is a voluntary organization; therefore, everything depends on the respondents’ “willingness to devote an hour of their unpaid time” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 473).
5.1.3. The interview guide
An interview guide refers to “the brief list of memory prompts of areas to be covered that is often employed in unstructured interviewing or to the somewhat more structured list of issues to be addressed or questions to be asked in semi-structured interviewing” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 473). Such a guide has been prepared for this research and can be found in the Appendix 2. The pieces of advice by Bryman and Bell (2011, p. 474) have been taken into account: the interview guide started with the general and specific questions about the respondent, projects managed and project teams; it also included the areas to be covered in order to answer the research question; there was a certain order of these areas, but the interviewer was often very flexible in changing it, and the questions were not too specific nor leading.
5.1.4. Conducting the interviews: procedural and ethical considerations
It was chosen to conduct all the interviews in English because it is an official language in AIESEC organization, and normally all of its members speak it fluently. Indeed, no issues related to the language used were encountered.
It was decided to conduct the interviews via the software Skype as a voice call mainly because the sample was extremely geographically dispersed – AIESEC functions in 110 countries and territories (AIESEC, 2011a). The most obvious advantage of such
43
interviewing is saving of time and money because the researcher does not need to travel or to pay phone charges. To put it in another way, without the usage of online software, such research would not be affordable for the student research. Also, as the interviews were not in person and based on open questions, meaning that the interviewer most of the time just listened, the influence of researcher’s personal characteristics was minimal.
Quite a few drawbacks of phone-type interviewing in comparison to personal interviewing are pointed out, but most of them are concerned with arranging the process; for example, some people cannot be reached in some way, response rates can be lower, it is hard to ensure that the respondent is the correct person, or it may be hard to sustain long interviews because such interviews are easier to terminate (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 207). However, in this case it was not hard to find respondents using the snowball technique and those respondents were eager to talk for a long time because of their interest in the topic.
Nevertheless, two disadvantages of phone as opposite to personal interviewing are quite important: it is difficult to establish personal contact and trust, and it is “not possible to observe body language to see how interviewees respond in a physical sense” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 489). Indeed, the author admits that sometimes it was hard to understand if the interviewee has already finished answering or just stopped for a thinking pause, which sometimes resulted in the unwanted interruption. However, the respondents usually talked several minutes without stopping or, vice versa, sometimes they could not generate the answer at once while other emotions and reactions could be felt from the changes in their voice. Also, no signs of distrust were noticed. On the other hand, the remoteness of the interviewer can help to avoid the impact of her personal characteristics and behaviour on the interviewee and the answers (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 206). The author believes that this was especially important when individuals answered the questions related to negative experiences in KS and the motives not to engage in these processes.
Despite the time zone differences and intensive respondents’ agendas, the researcher managed to distribute the interviews proportionally by proposing several time options in the standard GMT (Greenwich Mean Time) format in advance. In such a way the researcher did not get tired and had time to review each interview and to improve the interviews and interviewing skills for the next ones. The interviewees were informed about the approximate duration (one hour) of the interview, so they planned their time, and the distraction caused by rush was avoided.
As recommended by Saunders et. al. (2009, p. 341), before the conversation the interviewees were also asked whether it was possible to record it, explaining that this is needed to make an accurate transcript of what was told. Employing the recording devices, the interviewer did not need to write everything down, so she could “concentrate more fully and listen attentively to what is being said and the expressions and other non-verbal cues” (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 339), although it is true that the author made small notes during the conversation in order to ask follow-up questions, especially because sometimes a single response was long and consisted of the answers to several questions. The disadvantages of placing a recorder, identified by Saunders et. al. (2009, p. 341), were minimized: the respondents were not made to feel alarmed or tense as they did not see the device directly. Also to avoid technical problems, as
44
recommended by Bryman and Bell (2011, p. 476) before each interview all technological devices and the Internet connection were carefully checked, and silent background ensured. Indeed, all of the conversations resulted in good quality.
At the beginning of the interview, the respondents were reminded about the researcher’s background as well as the topic and purpose of the research. It was explained how the data will be used, and ensured that they will have the access to the finished paper. At the end of the interview all of the respondents were asked whether coding of the interviews and related material was necessary for anonymity reasons, but all of them denied such a necessity, claiming that AIESEC is a voluntary organization, so its activities are transparent and known to the public, and other information is mostly personal opinions that they are open to share with everybody.
5.2. SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVIEWS
The short summary of the interviews’ general characteristics is provided in the table 7. 10 PMs from 8 different countries have been interviewed in December, 2011, and almost all interviews lasted more than one hour. For practical matters, henceforth the respondents will be referenced by the short interview code as assigned in the table; for example, the quotes by the first respondent will be indicated by “[R1]”.
Table 7. Short description of the interviews. Created by the author based on the
empirical material gathered
Interview code
Respondent Countries represented
Projects Date Length
R1 Milos Djuricanin
Serbia ‘New Leaders’ 29 Nov 01:21
R2 Mohamed Ouf
Egypt ‘Think Green’ 1 Dec 01:01
R3 Alexandra Bese
Romania ‘Romania Youth Leadership Forum’
3 Dec 01:10
R4 Pavel Valkanov
Bulgaria ‘Business in Practice’ 3 Dec 01:03
R5 Egor Utkin Russia ‘Project SumMeet’; ‘You are welcome’; International Congress in Kenya
4 Dec 01:17
R6 Maryna Silchenko
Ukraine, Ghana and other African countries
‘African YES!’ about entrepreneurship, ‘AfriTour’ about tourism, ‘ASK’ about HIV/AIDS
6 Dec 01:16
R7 Maclean Commey
Ghana ‘AfriTour’ 7 Dec 01:16
R8 Dušan Kostadinović
Serbia ‘Responsible Youth-Sustainable Future’
8 Dec 00:52
R9 Anastasia Markelova
Russia ‘Euroxpro 2008’ 11 Dec 01:21
45
R10 Elena Culai Norway, Moldova
‘Fk project’ 18 Dec 01:25
5.3. DESCRIPTION OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents differ in terms of gender, nationalities, and experience in AIESEC. They also managed very diverse projects in AIESEC. In this section each of them will be introduced using the following structure: the nationality; the name, place, date, goals, participants and short content of the project(s) managed; the description of the project team managed.
5.3.1. Milos Djuricanin
Milos Djuricanin is Serbian. He was the PM of the national project in Serbia, called ‘New Leaders’, in 2011. The main goal of the project was to motivate “young people that have already had some initiatives in their communities, either as individuals or through some NGO” to take leadership [R1]. So participants were students from universities and high schools with different backgrounds, “who were not actually active, but wanted to be active” [R1]. This project has been organized annually 6 years in a row, but this time it was bigger: besides the main conference in Belgrade, 8 additional events have been organized in 3 other different cities in Serbia. For example, a two-day seminar was organized where on the first day young leaders were educated by explaining “how to make difference, changes in their lives using different tools and how to develop in the next period”, and the second day was for the workshops with NGOs where the steps how to organize a project or prepare a business plan were explained in order to encourage changes in society [R1]. An agreement with one NGO to implement one idea from the seminars was achieved straight away. Other events included short conferences where local young leaders, “who made change already”, shared “their knowledge and experience with others and motivated them to make something for society”. The final event was a conference in Belgrade on the 7th and 8th of November, 2011. Lecturers were “either already recognized local leaders (from arts, business, academia), or representatives of important initiatives” [R1]. As always, several motivational speakers participated as well.
Milos Djuricanin is finishing business studies. Outside AIESEC, he was working “in offices where everybody was responsible for their own part of the project”, but did not manage teams. In AIESEC, first he managed some smaller projects, and then he was LC EB member, responsible for selling and project development. Milos Djuricanin was appointed as PM in May, 2011. For 6 months he managed the project team consisting of 6 members. The core team consisted of 5 people responsible for finances, logistics, events, leadership development program, and for project delegates and NGO relations. The 6th member was from the ordinary Public Relations team, so she was “just present in the meetings and responsible for public relations of the project” [R1]. All members were Serbians, but studied various subjects such as Business, Economics, or Journalism. The public relations girl was in EB, two girls knew something about project management because they participated in the “AIESEC cycle to prepare them to be OCPs”, while others were just LC members.
46
5.3.2. Mohamed Ouf
Mohamed Ouf is Egyptian. He was the PM of the national project in Egypt, called ‘Think Green’, started in 2010. This project was developed from his other initiative, a project called ‘Make a difference’, which had the aim “to bring cultures close together, especially Western and Middle Eastern countries by bringing in volunteers from abroad NGOs” [R2]. But Mohamed Ouf “cared more about environment”, so he started the project ‘Think Green’, which was mainly “a recycling campaign” [R2]. This project still continues. Not only were the recycling bins put in many places, but also the awareness campaign is being implemented seeking to change the way people think about the environment. This is done “by putting posters everywhere and by bringing foreigners from the countries where recycling is developed”. Every week workshops and sessions are organized for the students of different universities and high schools. Also, camps are organized for little children in summer. During two weeks workshops are conducted by “taking children outside to collect garbage and make something recyclable out of it” [R2]. When the project first started in February, 2010, it targeted 6 schools and over 550 students, but numbers a constantly growing.
With regards to project management team, Mohamed Ouf started to work alone, but soon more people joined him. Different team members are responsible for sales, awareness campaign, services expediting, finding and receiving foreign interns. PR team is responsible for designing the sessions and target groups. There are plans to form one more team that would be responsible for packaging and fund raising in order to expand the project more. There are more than 100 members already. They are all Egyptians, of similar age, and there is balance in terms of gender. However, in summers the team becomes much more diverse in terms of culture because many interns from different countries “come and work on this project for 2 months, they are part of the team, they share their point of view from different aspects and different cultures” [R2].
5.3.3. Alexandra Bese
Alexandra Bese is Romanian. She was the PM of the national project in Romania, called ‘Romania Youth Leadership Forum’, in 2010. The goal of the project is to educate and motivate young people to discover and develop their leadership potential. It is a conference that takes place annually for already 18 years. This time on the 25-28th of November, 2010, more than 500 students from 15 universities in Romania were gathered in Bucharest for various activities, including workshops about leadership and entrepreneurship and motivational lectures by 6 important social personalities. Also the project is important because of networking as it brings together the members and over 200 alumni of AIESEC and the representatives of over 30 partnering companies.
Alexandra Bese has a degree in Economics and at the moment is studying Management. She had no previous experience as a PM, but was involved in organizing some smaller conferences and events in AIESEC as a VP. The project management team consisted of 20 members who had different responsibilities such as communication, public relations or finance. Alexandra started to work with 8 people from her LC while people from other LCs joined the team 3 months before the conference. The team was quite diverse
47
in terms of experience in AIESEC, some people being members for more than 4 years and some being new recruits.
5.3.4. Pavel Valkanov
Pavel Valkanov is Bulgarian. He was the PM of the national project in Bulgaria, called ‘Business in Practice’, in the spring of 2011. This student-to-business event has been organized every year since 2005. The main goal is to connect the highly skilled students with leading employers in the fields of economics and technology. For 2 days over 200 young people were engaged in workshops and case solving, prepared and lead by the partnering companies. Working on the relevant business topics, namely Management and Corporate Social Responsibility, students increase their understanding on current business trends and developed their professional skills and competences in the areas of team work, entrepreneurship, and innovation.
The project preparation and implementation took only 2 months “mainly because this was the 6th edition of the event and there was a project pipeline” [R4]. Pavel Valkanov managed other 5 people. One person was responsible for communication and distribution of information about the project via various media channels. Sales person was responsible for contacting and managing companies for resources. The role of IT person was to update the website and create promotion materials. Others were responsible for participants, including their selection, reception, and assignment to workshops. All members were 21 -23 years old. They were studying different subjects such as International Relations, Computer Programming or Languages. Half of them had no experience in AIESEC. Team members were selected by AIESEC Bulgaria, not by the PM, but Pavel Valkanov saw their applications and had Skype calls with them.
5.3.5. Egor Utkin
Egor Utkin is Russian. He was a manager of several projects in AIESEC. In 2009, in Russia he organized a conference, called ‘Project SumMeet’, which aimed to develop AIESEC in Russia, mobilize resources for outstanding growth and create network with AIESEC members from all over the world. The conference lasted 10 days and consisted of 6 events: the national conference which lasted for 5 days and attracted 150 participants from 26 regions in Russia; a cultural event called Global Village with around 20,000 participants; an international exchange event called Growth Day; the leadership day as a business event with 10 international companies; and the Alumni Congress. Although dominated by Russians, the conference was international as participants came also from Kazakhstan and some European countries such as Czech Republic, Poland, and Germany.
With regards to the team of the project ‘Project SumMeet’, Egor Utkin managed the “leaders of leaders” because the team consisted of 6 people that had been leading regional entities of AIESEC for a year in Russia before [R5]. Each of them was responsible for one of the functions: Delegates Servicing, related to visas, registration, communication with delegates, and promotion inside the AIESEC network; External Relations, related to sales, fundraising, and partners servicing; Communication, related to the work with Mass Media, social networks, and external promotion; Logistics, related to work with transportation, logistics, and venues for all events; Content, related
48
to event agendas, speakers, workshops and master classes; Finance, related to government, budgeting, grants filling. At the same time, each of the members was in charge of one of the events mentioned before. Also each of them had several assistant to support the activities.
In 2010, again in Russia, Egor Utkin organized a project called ‘You are welcome’. This project was implemented in cooperation with the local government and various NGOs. It consisted of 3 parts: educational, social, and cultural. During 5 days 42 events took place, including: trips to orphanages, summer camps, cultural nights, business trainings, master-classes, round tables etc. Only 5 AIESEC members were in the project team while other members were mostly students from various universities.
In the summer of 2011, Egor Utkin was involved in the organization of the International Congress in Kenya, which “brings together all the leaders of AIESEC” [R5]. As a Team Leader for Special events, he was responsible for several events such as Global Youth
forum, culture night Global Village, study tours, and official dinners. For 3 months he managed the team of 5 people from different countries.
5.3.6. Maryna Silchenko
Maryna Silchenko is Ukrainian. She was the PM of several projects in 17 African countries, in the period of 2006-2008. Four main projects implemented in different countries were: ‘African YES!’ about entrepreneurship, ‘AfriTour’ about tourism, ‘ASK’ about HIV/AIDS, and the ‘IT Education project’ in high schools. The main goal of all these projects was to provide university students in African countries with more knowledge and skills regarding these topics via seminars, workshops, and rotational assignments, and to help them to develop their own similar projects. The idea was to inspire and to enable African youth to initiate and develop their own projects that would address their local needs and would be supported if needed by interested sponsors. The respondent could not remember exact numbers, but she claimed that the project “involved hundreds or even thousands of people” [R6].
Maryna Silchenko had extensive experience working in AIESEC Ukraine in 2003-2005. She mostly worked on educational projects about entrepreneurship, leadership, and cultural preparation. In African projects, her role was more of supervising, coaching, and supporting the leaders of these projects rather than directly managing them. She was helping them to connect with each other in these 17 different African countries and with other parts of the world. Each project was implemented approximately twice per year. The main phases were as follows: 4-5 months preparation, 2 months realization, and around 2 months follow-up.
The structure of all projects in Africa was clearly defined, and the documents such as job descriptions or promotional material were created in advance by the African Growth Network Board based on the inputs of the country managers in previous years from conferences, e-research, brainstorming etc. The core project team consisted of around 12 people: one main Project Manager, 3 Team Leaders responsible for Marketing or External Relations, Human Resources, and Student Exchange functions, and 3-4 people in each functional team. The marketing team was responsible for public relations, partners, and logistics. The human resources team was responsible for organizing
49
educational cycles for the people involved in the project, both as project team members and as participants. The exchange team was responsible for bringing international students to work in African projects.
During her first year in Ghana, Maryna Silchenko was a member of the National Committee, and she was contacting directly mostly the leaders of local offices. During the second year, the team that Maryna Silchenko was managing and advising was constantly changing depending on the projects implemented. With some of them she met before, while with other the communication usually took place online. “More than 90% of them were Africans, 1-4 years university students or recent graduates” [R6]. Most of them had neither AIESEC, nor project management experience.
5.3.7. Maclean Commey
Maclean Commey is Ghanaian. He was the PM of the national project in Ghana, called ‘Afritour’, in 2008-2009. “The project was an innovative approach aimed at empowering young people to find their own ways of development in the fast growing tourism industry and take further actions to capitalize on those development opportunities” [R7]. So the participants were, first of all, young people, predominantly students from “tertiary institutions that offer tourism” or individuals who had a passion for tourism [R7]. They were involved in different trainings and skill development. The project team aspired to connect various stakeholders in the tourism industry in Ghana by organizing and facilitating a variety of sessions for know-how sharing.
AIESEC Ghana has been implementing entrepreneurial and HIV-AIDS projects already, but the Afritour project was initiated by Maclean Commey. Project preparation, implementation and closure took around a year, from May, 2008, until May, 2009. Maclean Commey managed other three team leaders: promotions team leader was in charge of sourcing and funding; exchange team leader was responsible for the interns who were to participate in the project; learning team leader was responsible for developing and customizing the learning content of the project to the current reality in each community where the project was run. Team leaders managed their team consisting of both local AIESEC members and interns from abroad who were interested in the project. Indeed, 6 interns from different countries were assigned to different teams to support them and share their knowledge as well as best cases practices in tourism sector in their countries. All team members were from the same LC and of similar age (19-25), but it was a diverse team in terms of education; for example, some of them studied Social Sciences while others studied Natural Sciences. Most of them did not have much experience in project management or team working.
5.3.8. Dušan Kostadinović
Dušan Kostadinović is Serbian. He is the PM of the national project in Serbia, called ‘Responsible Youth-Sustainable Future’. This project is still in the planning phase since it started in October, 2011.The aim of the project is to motivate people at the age of 18-29 in Serbia to act in a sustainable manner and to create own projects about sustainable development. This will be done by delivering workshops and lectures to them about project management and sustainable development in 6 different cities. Workshops will be held by 4 interns from abroad and by several local companies.
50
The youth will also be able to participate in ‘The competition of project ideas’ which will last for 5 months. The best 3 projects will get 1000 euros each to realize their projects. There will also be the ‘Sustainability fair’ where former winners will present their projects and companies and NGOs will show their programs and actions connected to sustainable development.
Dušan Kostadinović already has some project management experience in AIESEC. He was leading a project in 2009 aimed at educating youth from the Balkans about entrepreneurship and connecting them for the exchange of experience in this area.
Currently Dušan Kostadinović is managing a team of 5 people who are responsible for Public Relations, Information Technologies, Finances, non-profit organizations, and events. They are of similar age of about 21-24, and there is a balance in terms of gender. Team members have some project experience, and at the moment are involved in Management or IT related studies. They live in different cities, so they have limited opportunities to meet personally. Most of them did not know each other before, but they will manage the project together for about 7 months.
5.3.9. Anastasia Markelova
Anastasia Markelova is Russian. She was the PM of the project in Russia, called ‘Euroxpro 2008’, in 2008. It was the annual international conference for AIESEC members from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and from Western Europe and North America (WENA). Every year it is held in a different country. This time it took place in St. Petersburg in April and May, 2008. The purpose of EuroXpro was to develop strategies for each AIESEC region to ensure the continuity and implementation of AIESEC global strategy sharing knowledge and developing members’ skills. AIESEC Russia also had an external goal to brand AIESEC in Russia better and to increase the understanding of Russian culture among both international delegates and Russian citizens. In Russia such project was organized for the first time. It included such events as international fair called ‘Global Village’, cultural week, and official day with alumni.
The preparation for the conference took about 10 months. Anastasia Markelova managed the team of 5 VPs: VP for External Relations was responsible for fund-raising; VP for Special Events was responsible for one event and for the 4 event managers for other events; VP for Finance was responsible for budget planning, setting goals for External Relations and controlling cash flows; VP for Logistics and Placement was responsible for all the interactions with the hotel for the conference and other logistics questions; VP Delegates was responsible for the participants. The team was not diverse in terms of age, education or culture. They were around 20 years old Russians and were engaged in Economics related studies. There were 2 men and 3 women in the team. Later the team was extended to contain 20 people, but most of the comments made about knowledge sharing inside the team mostly concern just the core team.
5.3.10. Elena Culai
Elena Culai is Moldavian. She was the PM of the national project in Norway, called ‘Fk project’, in 2010. The MC in Norway implemented many projects but this was the biggest one financed by an external organization. The main goal of the project was to
51
facilitate the exchange of knowledge between the North, meaning Norway, and the South, meaning less developed countries. For cooperation 3 countries have been chosen: Kenya, Mozambique, and Cambodia. 8 young people from Norway were sent to work for 5 months on social issues in different non-profit organizations in these three countries. Also 7 people came to Norway to engage in similar activities in local non-profit organizations: 2 from Cambodia, 2 from Mozambique, and 3 from Kenya. Before starting to work in the assigned organizations, all participants attended an induction seminar where they got a clear understanding of the project, cultural preparation, and got to know the representatives from their workplaces. After the project, the participants were expected to spread the knowledge gained in their home countries.
Elena Culai had some experience in project management, but not in management of an international team. With regards to experience in AIESEC, Elena Culai was a VP for Finance at local level and LCP in Moldova, both for a year. The idea of the ‘Fk’ project was raised and planned a year before she started to work in MC Norway, so her task was to implement it. In MC Elena Culai was responsible for finances, which she has also been studying at the university. AIESEC Norway organized such a project for the first time, so they were receiving guidelines and steps to follow from the funding organization. Elena’s task was to translate them into “AIESEC terms” and to share with her project team [R10]. The project team can be divided into people in Norway and PMs abroad. In Norway a Romanian girl was responsible for recruiting students and sending them abroad while a Norwegian guy was responsible for sales, i.e. contacting the non-profit organizations in Norway that would accept interns from abroad. Elena Culai knew these team members very well and could meet them often because they were also part of the MC Norway. However, she never met the other 3 PMs abroad: in Kenya, Mozambique, and Cambodia. They got to know each other just via Skype and Facebook. And although sometimes Elena Culai needed to discuss certain topics with functional managers, for example, finances with the VP for Finance, she wanted to have only one main contact in each country, i.e. PM. Elena Culai as the main PM of the project was helping the other team members to understand what is needed to do in the project and to make sure that it is done. These other members both in Norway and abroad were recruiting, selling, taking care of practicalities such as accommodation, and implementing other tasks.
5.2. EMPIRICAL MATERIAL PROCESSING
As mentioned before, all interviews have been recorded in order to make their transcripts. This not only allows preserving precise records for the detailed analysis, but also afterwards permits to quote the interviewees directly, to repeat analysis and, if appropriate, to share the material with other researchers (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 481; Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 341). As all the conversations were in English, no translations of the transcripts were necessary, and any issues related to this were avoided.
Having transcribed 10 in-depth interviews, about 100 pages of raw empirical material has been obtained. Firstly, based on the literature review (see Chapters 3 and 4), the author prepared a template of 7 main categories: KS mechanisms and types of knowledge shared, Organizational context, Interpersonal and team characteristics, Cultural characteristics, Individual characteristics, Motivational factors, and “Other”. During the first screening of the transcripts, the phrases, sentences or paragraphs,
52
expressing different ideas, were referenced and placed in the corresponding categories. When the author was not sure to which category the idea belongs to, it was put in the category “Other”. Sometimes some pieces of information were repeated because they fitted in more than one category or because it was needed for the context. In such a way, it was ensured that no ideas were overlooked.
During the second screening, the phrases, sentences or paragraphs were assigned to smaller groups. In the category of KS mechanisms it was done depending at which organizational level the knowledge was shared because such a distinction has been made by almost all interviewees during the interviews: inside the team, between the leaders of different generations, at local and national level, and at the international level. The smaller groups of other 5 categories were prompted by the literature review of the factors affecting KS (see Chapter 4).
During the third revision, in each of the smaller groups, the quotes were grouped again, according to the idea they expressed, and put in order of logical sequence. As the author got a clearer picture of the results obtained, the last category “Others” was reviewed again and its phrases, sentences and paragraphs were assigned to relevant smaller groups, and some new groups emerged.
5.3. RESULTS PRESENTATION
The results are presented in a chronological order according to the categories and groups formed, so very similarly to the literature review in Chapters 3 and 4. The quotes in the small groups are shown without quotation marks, but they are accentuated by indents. Also they are introduced by a small summary of the idea that they express. All this permits to keep the structure and orientate the reader throughout the huge amount of data. Indeed, in such a way it is easy to get a quick overview of the results or to refer to different ideas. Only in the results section about cultural characteristics (see Chapter 7), the results are presented as a fluent text with the quote in quotation marks because each respondent talked about his or her own national culture, and few similar ideas were obtained.
As many as possible direct quotes were employed because, as explained in the section “Research philosophy” (see Chapter 2) and referred several times already, the author believes that the human behaviour can be explained only through “the eyes of the people involved”. In other words, the intention was to show the situation as it is seen by the respondents and not to lose the initial meaning. For the same reasons, although the language used by the respondents sometimes was very informal or grammatically incorrect, the changes made by the author were limited to cutting out the repeating or irrelevant information (in the text marked as ‘<…>’) and inserting some words to form complete sentences or to provide context (in the text marked as ‘[ ]’). However, the additional explanations or clarifications of the same concept provided by the interviewees were marked as ‘( )’, and their thinking pauses were marked as ‘…’.
However, the author also would like to notice that the amount or the length of the quotes are not necessarily proportional to their importance because sometimes some respondents used more words while others less to express the same idea. Actually, the answers cannot be quantified as, for example, “half of the respondents agreed”, because
53
different people talked about their unique experiences and they were asked different follow-up questions, which resulted in discussing different aspects of the same topic. However, this is not the concern of the researcher, because the research aim was to find out the potential explanations for the KS in voluntary organizations rather than to generalize the results.
One of the features of AIESEC organizational culture is the heavy usage of acronyms. Not surprisingly, the respondents use a lot of them during the interviews, especially knowing that the interviewer as an alumnus is familiar with them. However, the author acknowledges that the reader might be not acquainted with those acronyms and consequently may not understand the ideas quoted. Therefore, the main terms, their explanations and acronyms are provided in the table 8.
Table 8. Acronyms and terms used in AIESEC. Created by the author based on
personal experience and (AIESEC, 2011b)
Acronym
Full title Explanation
LC Local Committee
Local branch of AIESEC placed in different cities of the countries where AIESEC is present. It is responsible for the AIESEC activities at local level.
LCP Local Committee President
Member with the highest responsibility at local level, who is in charge of managing the whole Local Committee and its members.
VP Vice President Member of the Executive Board, responsible for a specific area of the LC and accountable to the LCP.
EB Executive Board
Executive team composed of the President and VPs, who are in charge of the decision making and implementation in the LC if at local level, or MC if at national level.
MC Member Committee
National branch of AIESEC, representing the country where it is located. It is responsible for the AIESEC activities at national level. LCs are accountable to MC.
OC Organizing Committee
Team responsible for the management and organization of a specific event such as conferences or projects.
OCP Organizing Committee President
The leader of the OC, a synonym for project manager or project director.
AI AIESEC International
AIESEC headquarters, responsible for the whole organization with regards to strategy, development and growth etc. Its members are responsible for different functional areas.
5.4. RESULT ANALYSIS
The analysis of the results was carried out based on the comparison of the interview material and the literature review. The KS mechanisms used in AIESEC were identified and assigned to the personalization - codification and individualization-
54
institutionalization dimensions while the knowledge shared in AIESEC was categorized as tacit or explicit, and individual or collective.
However, as can be predicted by the research question, the most attention was paid to the factors affecting KS in AIESEC. The detailed analysis was conducted by comparing the empirical results with the theoretical framework formed, i.e. the author sought to find out whether the factors identified in AIESEC influenced KS to the same direction as suggested by the existing literature. Also, it was in the interest of the researcher to evaluate which factors may affect KS in AIESEC most strongly and to discover new factors.
5.5. TRUTH CRITERIA
In business literature research it is suggested that for the evaluation of qualitative researches, as opposite to quantitative, different criteria are needed, namely trustworthiness and authenticity (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 395). Authenticity “criteria raise a wider set of issues concerning the wider political impact of reseach” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 395), but they “have not been influential” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 399), so only the criteria of trustworthiness will be discussed in this section: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 395).
Firstly, the credibility of findings in this research is increased by choosing an appropriate research design and method. In the open interviews, the researcher could ask additional questions in order to check her understanding about the situation or to get extra clarifications. Also, after the analysis has been finished, the final paper was sent to all the respondents because the author wanted to show the findings in the specific context that they highly depend on. This was possible because all respondents agreed to be not anonymous. Some of the respondents provided some corrections and explanations, which were taken into account. In the end, they confirmed that their perceptions gathered in this investigation were correctly understood and interpreted. Researchers call such technique “respondent validation” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 396).
In quantitative research, transferability means the possibility to get the same findings in another research context or in the same context, but at a different point of time (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 398). However, some researchers argue that in qualitative research it is more important to provide as many details as possible about the research context, so that others could refer to it as “a database for making judgements about the possible transferability of findings” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 398). That is why in this thesis the long descriptions and many quotes have been provided to allow the reader to understand better the experience of the respondents, and the context in which they engaged in KS.
Dependability is “parallel to reliability in quantitative research” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 398). According to Saunders et. al. (2009, p. 321), “reliability is concerned with whether alternative researchers would reveal similar information”. Actually, it is “almost impossible to conduct a true replication” because qualitative research is often unstructured and reliant on the researcher’s focus and interpretation (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 408) and because material is collected in a specific situation which most likely will change (Saunders et. al., 2009, p. 327). Nevertheless, the author still considers
55
important to deflect the frequent criticism of the lack of transparency, i.e. that sometimes it is hard to understand “what the researcher actually did and how she arrived at conclusions” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 409). Therefore, the theoretical and practical methodology of this research is discussed and explained in great detail, including the choices and reasons with regards to research approach, design and methods, literature review, respondent selection and the implementation of interviews. Finally, all the transcripts of the recorded interviews are saved and, with the agreement of respondents, are open for the revision and analysis of other researchers.
As explained in the research philosophy section (see Chapter 2), the author believes that reality is subjective, so while gathering and interpreting empirical material it is almost impossible to be totally objective. However, she intended to increase “confirmability, which parallels objectivity” (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 395) by the choice of result collection and analysis techniques. During the semi-structured interviews respondents were allowed to talk freely, and the general questions were mostly complemented only with inquiries for explanations, examples or facts. Also, as the interviews were not face-to-face, the risk that the personal researcher’s characteristics or attitudes affect the answers was minimized. Finally, the analysis of the results was structured according to the preliminary theoretical framework based on literature review, so it also somehow guided researcher’s focus during the interpretation.
56
6. RESULTS PART 1: KNOWLEDGE AND KS MECHANIMS
Similarly to the literature review, the results will also be presented in two separate chapters, each providing the answer to the sub-objectives defined in the introduction: what types of KS mechanisms are used in AIESEC, and what factors facilitate or hinder KS in this organization. As explained in the practical methodology chapter, the KS mechanisms are classified according to organizational levels because this is the way they were introduced by most of the respondents. Naturally, the types of knowledge shared are related to each mechanism respectively.
In the first introduction of AIESEC in this thesis, the pre-assumption has been expressed that staff turnover is great in this organization because its employees are young students. Some interviewees confirm the existence of such issue:
Teams are very dynamic and change every 6 months or every year <…> our results go away because in one term you invest, you make partnerships and projects and you are on the top, but the next term is starting from the beginning because people change [R8];
We [used to] miss a lot of data, a lot of information because we did not have anything for connecting everything [R2];
AIESEC, as an organization, in each year change the whole structure, all leadership positions, change all the people who are leading the projects <…> What happens: <…> you are going into some problem that someone already resolved, but you don’t have any information about it [R1].
Nevertheless, it needs to be stressed that the general evaluation of KS in AIESEC by the respondents is positive:
I see how AIESEC is perfect in that [KS] field <…> We are talking about information management in terms of sustainability of the organization, sustaining all the information that you have, saving it somewhere for the others, and just sharing knowledge <…> [we] have that sense of why that is important <…> you cannot say that information management is working badly here [R1];
Information sharing is happening all the time [R6];
Whatever you did you share the information with those around you <…> we did a lot of exchange of information, especially at the team level [R7];
Transferring knowledge through myaiesec.net, transferring knowledge from year to year <…> [in my project] So far KS is good [R8];
We always have transitions and evaluations. We always write reports, we always send these reports, we upload all the information on wikis, on the internal channels… <…> We organize a lot of conferences, seminars,
57
meetings – all of these things are KS <…> I think it is a strong instrument in AIESEC, the KS [R10].
Actually, respondents think that strong KS is the key factor for the long and successful existence of AIESEC:
AIESEC managed to grow so much, to become such a strong organization because the knowledge is shared and stored [R10];
As an organization, [AIESEC] is being better and better, growing and growing, they are achieving more and more; it proves enough to show that AIESEC has that information and knowledge sharing and the sense of sustainability [R1];
In this time having right information and knowledge is also why AIESEC is good [R8].
6.1. KS INSIDE THE TEAM
6.1.1. Team face-to-face meetings, working together
In all of the projects investigated, knowledge among team members was shared in face-to-face team meetings [R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10].The team gathered together on daily basis [R9, R10], twice per week [R7], once a week [R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R8], or once in at least two weeks [R1], usually with higher frequency closer to the main event if there is such [R1, R4].
Meetings were scheduled differently. Some teams had concrete regular times to meet, for example:
We had these weekly meetings which were scheduled – all the people knew on Monday at seven [o’clock] we had to meet [R3];
We had MMM - Monday morning meetings [R5];
We have rescheduled some meetings several times, so I will propose to have a fixed day for meetings [R8].
However, these meetings sometimes were complemented by additional spontaneous meetings [R3]. In some projects teams faced distance barrier and therefore communicated just virtually [R5]; however, some face-to-face meetings were also organized, for example:
Few months before finalization of the project, if the project is very long, we organized ‘team days’ [weekend] to have team building activities and to understand each other and the overall picture of the project [R5].
The activities in meetings slightly differed in different projects. First, meetings can be used to increase a common understanding of the project and its goals among the team, for example:
58
In the first meeting we went through the project itself, so they have a good picture of what the project is about, but what I am planning to do in the next couple of meetings is during 10 minutes make them sketch how they picture the project, with a pen and a piece of paper. So I guess all the pictures about the project will be different and then we will discuss about it. I think it is a good exercise for them to know how the other person pictures the project” [R8].
Second, in most of the other meetings members made more or less informal presentations about the project, what happened since the last meeting and what each member has done until that moment [R2, R4, R5, R6, R8]. This included sharing both “failures in order to find the best way to be effective and successes in order to be more productive” [R7]. Also, new goals and tasks were usually set to be done until the next time [R4, R5, R6, R9]. Some meetings were organized as ‘task forces’ where the whole team or the members concerned sit together and discuss the existing problem in order to solve it [R3, R4, R7]. For example, in ‘Afritour’ project in Ghana “the problem was [that they] were not effective in sales, [so they] shared ideas and a team member came up with an idea of an elevator speech with only 5 slides, [which was] developed and implemented, and [they] succeeded in sales [R7]. Creativity was encouraged among team members of the project ‘Euroxpro 2008’: they were discussing different types of proposals for different sponsors all together because “different backgrounds, different interests and knowledge could help them to create something really unique” [R9]. Sometimes during the meetings team members brainstormed, explained and shared general concepts and ideas about how to improve the project [R3, R7]. Finally, some meetings, or part of them, were devoted for team building and bonding together [R3, R4, R8].
PMs interviewed also organized feedback meetings or sessions [R1, R2, R6, R7, R9]. Interestingly, feedback was not only to the team members by the leader, but everybody shared their comments with each other [R2, R7, R9]. The information shared was about “the project itself, about the processes and about the project management” [R2], “what they can do and how they can improve the situation” [R6], and what things need to be stopped, started or continued [R7, R9].
Besides frequent team meetings, some respondents even encouraged team members to work together as a means of sharing experience because some team members can be more experienced in the area for which the other member is responsible [R3] or because functions are interconnected [R8].
6.1.2. Individual meetings with team members: training, coaching, and mentoring
Some PMs organized individual meetings with their team members [R3, R6, R7, R9] and considered them as coaching or mentoring:
I was always working with my VPs, I was helping them to understand better their own area and how they manage things because some of them didn’t have so much information and experience. There were many coaching and mentoring meetings where I could share the experience I had
59
in organizing conferences with them because I was the one having the overview of the project [R3];
Coaching meetings every month – by questions you can help the person to find ways by himself in his mind <…> you just let him think and find the solutions after this <…> as a motivated person he will work more actively [R5];
Those individual monthly meetings were like coaching or mentorship because professional problems were discussed in coaching type meetings with VPs, and problems of motivation - as mentorship and coaching all together [R9];
Some [team members] said “I want you to be my mentor”; [they] were asking personal questions <…> I was coaching in a personal way: how to make the meetings, how to delegate responsibilities, how to motivate some of the members, how to understand the behaviour of people [R6].
In ‘Euroxpro 2008’ project such meetings were obligatory and supposed to be formal, but Anastasia Markelova “tried to do them as informal as possible” [R9]. According to Egor Utkin, such personal meetings with every team member are more suitable “to talk about personal things” that they do not want to share with outsiders because “they believe you [PM], trust you” [R5].
6.1.3. Phone and Skype
Some project teams used a lot telephones: “mostly communicating over the phone” [R1]; “they speak on phone a lot; the phone was the main means of communication [R6]; “and we use phone all the time” [R8]. Other PMs used phone only when it was crucial: “I spoke with them on the phone in urgent situations, [for example, when] one guy from Mozambique got lost in the airport” [R10]. Sometimes potential team members called the elected PM to ask about the project even before applying for the position [R7].
Several project teams used the software Skype that works similar as a phone, just using Internet (VOIP) [R5, R6, R8, R10]. However, Pavel Valkanov with his team used Skype for writing:
We had 2-3 meetings on Skype like chat because some people did not have microphones; [they wrote] in 2-3 paragraphs what happened since last meeting or deadlines set, if they had problems and so on; then everybody [wrote] some suggestions [R4].
6.1.4. Google groups, facebook
Couple of PMs mentioned Google Groups as a means of KS:
We used Google Groups, over which we tried to communicate everything what is possible to communicate – all information concerning the team
60
and the project, and the other people included, in any way connected to the project [R1];
We attach documents on Google Groups [R8].
For informal communication among the project team and with external stakeholders the popular social network Facebook was used:
Facebook group - not so much for formal sharing or information, but <…> to know what they are doing in their personal time, personal life, how they are doing with friends, how to improve the project, some ideas, suggestions what can we do based on some other things, what we saw surrounding us, the other conferences, other examples, foreign countries <…> if everyone find some interesting link they can share it on Facebook or if they have any idea <…> maybe some educational stuff we also had in Facebook group [R1];
We had Facebook group of the project and OC Facebook account – for team building, sharing with friends [the experience of being] the OC of this conference, the activities we are doing, that we were working for so many months; Facebook event page – for stakeholders – official information about event [R3];
Facebook group [used] mainly informally: whenever they find something interesting they just put it there [R8].
6.1.5. Documents
All of the interviewed PMs for KS also used various documents [R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10]. They were mostly created using Microsoft Office programs.
Several PMs mentioned spread-sheets as a tool for planning, tracking, and evaluating performance [R3, R4, R5, R8, R9]. For example, Pavel Valkanov had the “Excel sheet called Management Based on Objectives (MBO)” which contained such information as “different kinds of tasks, key performance indicators, deadlines, task weight or relevance to the whole project” [R4]. Egor Utkin had a priority spread-sheet where priorities for the tasks were set and tracked by marking the finished tasks in green, the tasks in a process in yellow, and the tasks that are behind the schedule in red [R5]. Similarly, Dušan Kostadinović has a project plan with the priorities set during the meetings, and colours the progress there as well [R8]. Anastasia Markelova had a work plan for each VP in spread-sheet which was constantly updated “with all the tasks and achievements that need to be done by certain period of time” [R9]. Alexandra Bese in similar spread-sheets was evaluating the performance as a percentage of task completion, and besides tracking also included contextual information, for instance, what meetings were attended and how they went [R3].
Many documents about project processes were produced as a result of meetings:
Everything was more verbal during meetings, but I was doing a transcript [R4];
61
A guy will write down notes and at the end of the meeting will share [R7];
During these weekly meetings I type in weekly plans [R9];
We actually just did updating on our meetings, on wiki base and on reports on the meetings – we had everything, what is done, what is not done, what they need to do the next period [R1];
Whenever they have a team meeting, they write the outcome of the meeting and they share it among themselves [R7].
Other similar documents were in the form of written reports prepared regularly by team members individually:
There were written reports by every core team member at the end of every day [R9].
Some documents were pretty standardized, usually containing information for stakeholders or about job roles and structure, for example:
We have templates for presentations in school <…> we have some materials about the structure what a person has to do to implement a new project, how to select a team/members, how to develop structure [R2];
We had a template for our outputs which we completed each time we had a meeting [R3];
I would get the general template, I would discuss it with the team leader who previously discussed it with the team and then we share the templates. [R7].
For African projects a newsletter was regularly produced “with updates, some encouragement, results” [R6].
6.1.6. Emails, online documents, folders in personal computers, Dropbox
Different ways of storing and sharing documents were employed. Most of the PMs mentioned email [R2, R4, R6, R7, R9, R10]. Some information was included directly in emails while other was shared as attachments:
Before I would send an email around with the agenda and the content of what we are supposed to be discussing at the meeting [R7];
We also gathered from every core team member what they have done this particular day in emails [R9];
I made a lot of guidelines on very specific things that needed to be done and sent them a lot of emails [R10];
I can send a document, it is going to be a proposal or a presentation about some problems, environment or something specific [R2];
62
During meetings I was doing a transcript and sent it to everyone via email after [R4];
The day of the meeting I send an email, and regarding what they read in the mail we discuss what we can do to improve [R7].
Other PMs preferred to have the documents classified in one place. For example, Anastasia Markelova “had a folder in [her] computer with a folder for every date”, which was accessible to everyone in the common office [R9]. In other projects software DropBox was extensively used [R5]. It permits changing the folders at any time from different computers. Egor Utkin organized documents in DropBox according to functions:
Every function has a folder, for example, communication – you can find all logotypes, plans, applications if you open new positions [R5].
Several PMs have chosen to update documents online using Google Documents [R3, R4, R6, R8]. For example, a lot of information about the project ‘Romania Youth Leadership Forum’ can be found in one Google Documents: “action plans, context, output of meetings, spread-sheets for each area” [R3]. In the project ‘Business in Practice’ Google Documents were used “mainly for applications to be sent to participants, <…> contacts of people somehow participating in the project” [R4]. Although in still in planning phase, the budget of the project ‘Responsible Youth-Sustainable Future’ is already online as a Google document [R8].
Maryna Silchenko with her team members from different African countries used AIESEC intranet myaiesec.net because they had their own page [R6]. In the project ‘New Leaders’updates also were made on wikis [R1].
6.1.7. Posters in the office
The team of the project ‘Euroxpro 2008’ had their own office, so they put posters with project timelines of tasks and fundraising on the walls that they could mark the progress; in such a way, everybody knew what the situation was in terms of performance and finances and could help in case of any problems [R9].
6.2. TRANSITION: KS BETWEEN PMS OF THE SAME OR SIMILAR PROJECTS
All respondents talked a lot about the transition in AIESEC, i.e. KS between the previous and the newly elected manager of the project [R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10]. The quote from the interview with Mohamed Ouf perfectly reflects its main goal:
To achieve the success in the transition period between two PMs, 95% of the information and all of the things that happened in this project [needs] to be transferred to the [new] PM [R2].
Most of the respondents claimed that they have left, are preparing or planned to create project information packages for the next generation [R1, R2, R3, R5, R7, R8, R9, R10]
63
and that they attempted to preserve all possible information and knowledge about the project:
I shared all the information <…> the final report is not short – 20 pages [R3];
I have transitioned all the aspects of the project together with all the documents [R10];
We as OC are preparing all the information now for the next OCP, and how we are preparing the whole project the OCP, in terms of information, in terms of everything concerning this project [R1];
It should be written about everything that happens in the project [R2].
This “everything” includes information about project management, i.e. how and what things need to be done, about challenges and suggested future improvements; databases of the companies contacted and comments about the meetings made; contacts of and feedback from the people involved in the project as organizers, supporters or participants; financial reports and other documents etc.:
Whom to call, whom to ask about how you can do this project <…> all the contacts of delegates [participants]; the information about what companies liked and what they did not [like]; what delegates [participants] thought was “cool”, what they think we should change; the feedback from the team, our opinions how things should be done from our experience; <…> [what] was bad and need to be improved by doing this and this and [what] was good <…> some financial reports and guidelines how to be more financially sustainable, how to invest your money [R1];
The number of company visits, number of schools, school timetables, what are the challenges that they faced, how they overcame challenges, what are the things to keep in this phase, what are the things to start <…> passwords, documents, news about the project in that phase… [R2];
Each area: what went well, difficulties encountered, tips and tricks, information that can be useful for the next OC <…> it was really specific, it was contextual information; for example, we applied for grants in a [specific] organization and we did not get because… [What they] should do further on [R3];
All the processes by these three steps: what [would be] nice to start, [i.e.] that you did not [do] but the next year it would be good if you with your team start this; [what] to finish - activities that you started but understood that they are not relevant; [what] to continue – [what is] useful to do [R5];
Outcomes of every meeting, <…> contacts in a database of whoever they contacted, the outcome of how it went, and any other information, for example, presentations on doing sales <…> not a general sales training, but certain important things that you have to notice when you are doing sales to people involved in the tourism industry [R7];
64
What companies and NGOs have been contacted, their status (participated or not and why), their contact information [for External Relations, also] for Logistics: where to get materials and so on <…> all the good things and not so good, ideas… [R8].
Sometimes new PMs had some knowledge about the project because they attended themselves the previous events or project team meetings [R1, R7, R9] but mainly such knowledge was transferred through documents [R1, R2, R3, R5, R7, R8, R9, R10] and personal meetings [R2, R3, R4, R5, R7, R9, R10] while a few PMs mentioned that they were present in previous projects as observers [R1, R7, R9].
Some information was being gathered constantly during the project by reporting about the meetings [R2] or feedback from participants [R9], also by putting all documents in one place such as a folder in a computer [R2, R5] or an email account [R1]. Similarly, although still in the planning stage, Dušan Kostadinović is thinking about contacting his “MC to know if there are already some documents that [he needs] to fill in, or if [he has] to make it [himself] - to create documents, write down [something] like a diary” [R8]. Indeed, some other PMs also mentioned this document, called “OCP diary” [R1, R4, R9] which is “a document about your experience as a PM for this project, good and bad things, what you want to save for the next person who is going to be in the same position” [R4], or conclusions of the meetings, “all things that [were done]” [R1]. However, these PMs also admitted that they did not use OCP diaries [R4] or they stopped writing them at some point during the project [R1].
Other information was gathered at the end of the project by asking each team member to write a report about each function [R1, R2, R7] and then a final report was produced. For example, Milos Djuricanin plans to create “a guide [about] how to manage and how to organize this project <…> explain all the steps that the project manager needs to know about organizing this project” [R1].
The documents shared took different forms such as reports [R2, R3], Google documents used during the project [R3], all documents for delegates, for externals and internals [R5], proposals [R9], project websites [R3, R9], Facebook groups [R3, R9], tracking tools [R5], budget [R9], scripts, logos and pictures [R9]. Several interviewees explained that these documents were usually given to the new PM who later shared it with his or her new project team [R2, R3, R5, R7]. Information was sent by emails [R3, R5, R10], uploaded on DropBox [R5], and burnt on compact discs [R5, R7]. Sometimes it was guarded in folders in an office computer [R10] or online [R5].
Most of the time sharing the documents was not enough; the transition also took a form of a meeting, usually in person [R2,R3, R4, R5, R7, R9, R10] but sometimes via phone or software Skype as well [R3]. Usually it was a talk or discussion between the former PM and the newly elected PM [R2, R3, R4, R5, R7] about “how it was to organize [the project], what problems [were encountered], what things went well <…> also specific matters, advice [how to solve] problems with team work” [R3], “personal problems” [R4], “the reality, the rules” [R7], “emotions, results” [R5],“cultural transition, or how to deal with the PMs in other countries that have a different culture” [R10].
The transition period can be of different duration: 5 days [R7], 2 weeks or 2 months [R5], or a month [R10], but usually the meetings in total took just several hours [R10].
65
Sometimes a new PM may have a similar transition with the PMs of analogous projects in other countries, for example:
Actually I met with a couple of people who organized similar conferences in other countries before we did in Russia; I was also meeting people who organized the same conference in previous year, I think it was in Serbia – the Serbian guy gave me some tools that he used and he just told me his story – couple of hours just chatting, what were the main challenges and possible pitfalls, the hardest things to do and so on [R9].
All of the respondents claimed that they have already consulted other AIESEC PMs:
After [the project] I had a bunch of people contacting me to meet and discuss the project management and how to make a good event in AIESEC; even now [for the] international congress in Russia in 2012, <…> [the PM] for the event asks me to help to run interviews, to select the right members of the team, we had some chats on what is the most important thing… [R9];
You keep coaching them [directly] for a period of about 3 months until they are able to manage the project, [but] handing over the project is not a disconnection point [R7].
6.3. KS AT LOCAL AND NATIONAL LEVEL
PMs in AIESEC also share knowledge from their projects with LCs and MC in their countries. Again, they mostly share their knowledge via physical means [R1, R3, R6, R9] and personal contact [R1, R2, R4, R7, R8, R9].
6.3.1. Documents, blogs, slogans and templates
Milos Djuricanin, wants to share the previously mentioned guide about how to manage the project ‘New Leaders’ not only with his “LC, but [also] with MC, the whole country, the whole AIESEC Serbia” [R1]. Actually, some time ago, Milos Djuricanin also started a blog, called Blue Man Blog, “to share all the group-based practices from all the LCs in the country”; however, since he left the position, no one else was assigned to continue it and the initiative terminated [R1]. Another example can be the PM of the project ‘Euroxpro 2008’, who shared with other AIESEC members in Russia the slogan and templates for the international fair called Global Village [R9]. In African countries, the reporting was mostly at the national level in the form of filling spread-sheets; also, projects shared different documents such as “job descriptions, project structure, promotional posters for university, proposals for companies, timeline of projects, contact information databases” [R6]. The reports from the project ‘Romania Youth Leadership Forum’ were shared with the LCs via Yahoo! Group [R3].
6.3.2. Discussions or training sessions in national conferences KS, other meetings
66
Some respondents mentioned that they were constantly reporting or discussing in the meetings or over the phone the progress of the project, successes and challenges with their LCP, EB, or MC [R3, R7, R9].
However, it seems that with the other local and national committees more knowledge about projects was spread during various conferences. Some interviewees told that they were sharing their project experience in the sessions that were part of the conference:
In this national conference that we will have in few days, I will have one session <…> [where] we will actually talk about this <…> about the perspective of my project, how we work [R1];
I just was in the national conference <…> I had different sessions about different things <…> [one of them about] management within project <…> I had a lot of experience and I was capable of delivering these things in front of 40-50 people from different local offices and abroad. I shared more general experience with relevant examples, for example, talking about time management I gave examples of how I was managing my time during this project, how the team was put together, how we were bonding as a team, resource finding and management <…> [participants were AIESEC members] with at least 6 months of experience in AIESEC, mostly as PM or part of a team [R4];
In this national conference I was facilitator, so I was holding a ‘team leaders track’ for all the LCPs and team leaders. So in one session [according to] who is leading [what] projects and on which issue, we split in 6-7 groups with similar issues and then people were sharing their knowledge and projects [R8];
[We were] going to national conferences and showing what we decided to do. Also we had some reports on the national conferences too: are we successful or unsuccessful in [certain] areas. <…> we wanted to share the success with all the AIESEC’ers in Russia [R9];
Then we had a conference where we shared the idea with the rest of the country. We had a session on project in general, what the project idea is [R10].
Mohamed Ouf explains how an informal discussion in a conference can lead to further KS with other PMs about the successful projects:
Usually in a conference, we sit together, we share what good projects we have. I tell them about the idea <…> [then] we set a meeting with PMs, with my PM and this person who wants to implement [the project], and they talk about the whole process: how it started from the beginning, the structure, how to reach the people, all stakeholders. <…> Then they [the project team] give the records about all the processes [as a] report [R2].
Maclean Commey says that some project knowledge in AIESEC outside the project team is also shared during specially organized meetings:
67
We do share the information of the project with other PMs. Normally the PM and other leaders in AIESEC have meeting days and share information and contacts that they think can help other team members [not only] at the LC level, but also at the MC level [R7].
6.3.3. Training, coaching, and mentoring from LC and MC
AIESEC members quite often get general and functional area trainings purposefully organized at local and national levels, where the representatives of LC or MC share their knowledge and experience [R2, R3, R7]. The most popular trainings are on sales [R2, R3, R7], but members also gain knowledge about promotion, human resources, information management [R7] and finance management [R8].
Maclean Commey also explains that in the Buddy and Coaching programs, organized by EB, the experienced AIESEC members are matched with new recruits for KS:
Team members have buddies and coaches that directly share… <…> The Buddy and Coaching programs are administrated by VP Talent Management. In the Buddy program AIESEC’ers who just joined can learn from the older members, who have been in AIESEC for about 3-4 years… time management, being positive and so on <…> The coaching has to do with functions, i.e. people who are in charge for finance will be coached by VP Finances [about] how to manage finances in the area <…> they [coachers] have gone through projects as leaders or in functional areas [R7].
Similarly, Egor Utkin says that for big projects the Board of Advice is formed from the experienced AIESEC members to advice and coach the project team:
For huge events, the special Board of Advice is formed. [These] are really experienced members <…> currently they are on the top positions in business or in government. They check everything we have done during the month and give us some advice. Usually it is in the office of one of them <…> we are showing the results in these [main] areas, we write what we need currently and how they can help us <…> every member of the project team can personally talk with someone from the board <…> you can ask someone from BoA to be coach for your team member [R5].
6.3.4. Centralized KM
With regards to KS at local and national level, an effective centralized approach is taken in Egypt. This year they established there a department of communication [R2]. The department “has a database of all the alumni who have been in AIESEC and who have been doing some roles. <…> It is a document, a spread-sheet” that also contains the contact information [R2]. “It is in the office and online” but it is accessible mainly for the members of the department, so if “anyone wants any contact from alumni, they can talk to communication people and ask for the contact, and they [will] share it with them. It is for everyone, [for] all the projects <…> it is for the whole MC” [R2]. The department “is also responsible for public relations and for the media appearance”, so
68
they manage printable material such a flyers, logos and banners used in various activities, including projects [R2]. These people also decide on the content of such material because “communication [department] is responsible for how [AIESEC is] perceived outside, in the world” [R2]. The department’s responsibilities related to projects are “collecting reports from PMs about <…> everything that happened during that project <…> [and] constantly checking them” [R2].
Some similar thoughts and initiatives about knowledge centralization, such as creating a blog to share group-based practices, to connect similar project or establish knowledge management system, were also expressed by Milos Djuricanin and Dušan Kostadinović in Serbia, and Pavel Valkanov from AIESEC in Bulgaria:
I created a blog to share all the group-based practices from all the LCs in the country, so others can learn from their success and failures <..> but it is not active since I left <…> we didn’t have any person who will continue to work on that blog [R1];
In Serbia we have 9 LCs with 4-5 projects each. It makes 50 projects a year. All of them are similar but not connected, so I will try to connect local projects that have similar activities and maybe we can do some activities or promotion together [R8];
Now we are trying to create some kind of knowledge management system to help processes like transitioning PMs. It is an idea and it is starting: we are collecting different information from the LCs [such as] OCP diaries, and we are contacting different people that were PMs. We are planning to put it in myaiesec.net like wiki with different kind of links to different projects and contact information of OCPs. This information will be available to everyone who searches in the system according to keywords [R4].
6.4. KS AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
At the top of the organization is AIESEC International (AI). It is very important to share knowledge with them because, as Egor Utkin puts it, “you as a PM will finish the project and go somewhere, you will not stay on this platform, but AI will be next year, and in 2 years… so AI is like the chance to save information for the next generation” [R5]. Again, the KS took place via reporting [R5, R6] and meetings [R6, R9]. With AI, PMs shared information about project results and mistakes made [R5]. Anastasia Markelova with the AI representative “discussed very strict precise professional questions” such as “delegates’ fee or how many people registered” because, according to this PM, “they would not be interested how the management was, they just needed the results” [R9]. In African projects not only there was exchange of information, but also brainstorming and developing new things [R6], although in these projects not that much sharing was needed because they were carefully designed by people who are now members of AI:
Actually this project was created by [African Regional Board] people who later became AI members, so they were quite up-to-date. [Also projects]
69
were very structured. There was a job description for each team and each member, what competences each person should have, what competences will be developed after…everything, it was very detailed. <…> We were collecting some feedback from the PMs who were following the structure, but there were no radical changes <…> [therefore] there was no much sharing about project management [R6].
It can be noticed that only the interviewees who managed projects at the international level mentioned KS with AI, maybe because these PMs are directly accountable to AI.
An important finding is that also AI shares the knowledge with others. For example, according to Elena Culai, the AI president from her term and the newly elected president “were always talking [about the project] with other potential countries that [AIESEC Norway] could have partnerships with next year”; she was “sure that in some informal talks, they have spoken with other presidents in other countries about this project” [R10].
Some project knowledge exchange was happening at the international level but not with AI as well:
We talked to other PMs, working on the same project in Africa. Especially we used to correspond with the PM of the ‘Afritour’ Project in Senegal and other LCs in Nigeria [R7].
6.5. KS OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION
Some interviewees also talked about project KS with the people outside AIESEC. For instance, a website was named as means to share information with the participants and partners [R9]. Some information was spread via participants who after the project “organized different activities that promote their experience; most of them made different videos, wrote blogs, went to different schools and universities and made presentations about their projects and about the issues that they had worked with” [R10].
70
7. RESULTS PART2: FACTORS INFLUENCING KS
In this chapter, the results regarding the factors influencing KS sharing in AIESEC will be presented. They will be organized according to the five areas of factors defined in the model for understanding KS research, developed by Wang & Noe (2010). The literature review how particular factors of each area affect KS has been provided in Chapter 4. However, as the research took mainly an inductive approach, not all of these factors were discussed by the respondents, and several new factors were introduced. So presenting the results, the author intended to follow the structure of the theoretical framework of reference, but also complemented each are with additional factors.
7.1. ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT
7.1.1. Management support
Almost all respondents confirmed that they had sufficient senior management support [R2, R3, R4, R5, R7, R8, R10], for example:
We had a commitment of the person [who is] the highest in the organization <…> Definitely, AI president was a huge support <…> [he] had a very important role and he supported me and helped me directly actually doing things, which for me was very important [R10];
I can say I got support [R3];
In general is good <…> I believe I got support from them [R4];
So far is OK, I am satisfied with the support [R8].
Mohamed Ouf even claims that “that is what they are supposed to do” [R2]. Management support in AIESEC can be expressed as emotional support and encouragement, as KS by more experienced members via meetings, coaching or training, as providing contact databases, or as physical or monetary resources; obviously this had a positive effect on KS:
I think I got emotional support from national level because you are communicating all the time; [they] get so involved into the project <…> I felt there is someone there who cares, we are all on the same page, we are striving for the same thing <…> usually [I asked] for personal meetings or different kinds of documents, tools <…> Even if I am not too persistent, I can get access to [resources] [R4];
<…> coaching - if you need some, the process itself, if you are lacking something, they will direct you how to manage, lead the team, how to make an efficient plan [R2];
71
Whenever we needed a trainer for team building, a projector, flip charts, markers – everything you need… when I wanted to do training or sth, I got it from my LC [R3];
Encouragement… you have <…> [It] depends on a project how they can help – money for budget, help with companies’ network that can participate in your project, or knowledge from previous conferences organized in same or other places [R5];
We had money from this funding organization <…> resources were not a problem, anything we needed we had; if we needed to organize trainings we had access to materials, everything that we needed [R10];
As an OCP, you have that logistic support anyways <…> In Belgrade where we are working we have 5 AIESEC offices, so we were able to use any of them [R1].
Sometimes senior manager even got involved in the networking and sharing of project knowledge itself:
He [AI president] also had a huge role in transmitting the idea of the project to the other MCPs from Cambodia, Kenya, Mozambique <…> in some informal talks they [AI president and the newly elected AI president] have spoken with other presidents about it because it was big success [R10].
However, Milos Djuricanin was not so satisfied with management support for KS, although he thinks that the change in this area has been initiated in his project and transferred for the next generation:
For KS I did not have that much of support. I told you, from my experience, MC did not know what happened in previous years, we really lacked that information that we really needed <…> really hard [but] I think we did manage a lot of things. That sharing that we had in my team… they learnt. One team member is now [new] OCP - that will be mostly helpful for the team [R1].
Also this Serbian PM explains that sometimes to raise or organize own resources such as cheap phone calls may be easier than to ask the organization:
We had an agreement with one telecommunication’s company, so we had phones that are free to talk between [us], so we communicated easily. We had phones just for AIESEC and we did not have to pay for it. That is really helpful <…> it is much easier to do it like that [R1].
Maryna Silchenko felt a lack of resources in African projects, but in the countries in general rather than in the organization; it seems to hinder KS:
Even in our national committee we did not have Internet at home, I was using Internet mostly... not even in the office, but in the Internet café <...> it was not available everywhere, people did not have it at home: they lived
72
in university dormitories, so they did not have Internet access. Many of them did not have AIESEC offices; they were just meeting in the university <…> we were sending mails but we could not call, we did not have financial sources to call [R6].
7.1.2. Rewards and incentives
None of the respondents initiated the topic of the monetary or any other kind of rewards and incentives. Based on the author’s knowledge, AIESEC members in the positions at national or higher organizational level usually get money for living expenses, but it is not related to the achievement of project goals, and even less with KS [R2, R9, R10]. Consequently, this topic was not further developed in the interviews.
7.1.3. Organizational structure
Based on the author’s experience and the terms used in AIESEC (see table XX), it can be concluded that this organization has a very hierarchical structure. Indeed, incidentally this is confirmed by some respondents while commenting on AIESEC organizational structure:
It is hierarchical I think <…> when you have a question, you have to ask this question your PM, if PM doesn’t know the answer, then he would have to ask his VP, if the VP doesn’t know, he has to ask the other VP, then MC etc. [R10];
General structure: AI and MC as my bosses, me and 5 VPs, and every VP had managers and these managers sometimes other support. It was really hierarchical system [R9].
Maryna Silchenko expressed an opinion that such hierarchical system may hinder KS because sometimes in the hierarchy chain it is not easy to reach the people who actually need the specific information:
I talk to the MC guy in the project - coaching, giving directions, providing materials…but then I am not sure what kind of information is passed to the members in between, [but] those members are the ones making the project happen. That’s why it was sometimes not that good <…> [For example, when] the PM was not as active as the members of the project, in some situations I was not getting in to the right people <…> there were some good members, but they are not getting through because of their managers [R6].
However, most of the other respondents think rather opposite; they argue that the informal atmosphere permits to access anybody in the organization. All of the respondents asserted that AIESEC members, even alumni, can be easily found via personal contacts because members know each other from conferences or collaborative activities or via contact databases; they can be asked to share their knowledge informally any time:
73
Usually all the people in AIESEC know each other, so they can easily reach each other if they need anything during their term even if others are finished. In some cases people don’t know each other [personally, but] can still call, set a meeting <…> for some updates and some concerns and recommendations… We have a database for all the people [R2];
Usually, at least in AIESEC, when you want to get information like this [about projects], it is very easy to get the contacts of the person <…> LCs, MCS…if you want to talk to VP Exchange from any AIESEC LC, you just approach your LCP and he or she will give you contacts. That is all because they all know each other from conferences, national support teams [R3];
You can reach everyone. You can reach the president of AIESEC International <…> we have enough wikis or websites or contact information in myaiesec.net system. You can find everyone based on their roles – current or previous <…> [or] ask people that worked at that time in the organization and they can tell [you the] name and [you] find [R4];
First, there is a platform on myaiesec.net where you can see a lot of contacts of VPs, presidents, all members; second, you can just ask a couple of your friends and somebody will be [in] contact with that person because everyone knows everyone, met at different conferences; you can write to a person and get emails of some members or [you] can check information of the delegates from different conferences [R6];
Usually I know people and I know who was in that position. If I find the ex-LCP, he will tell me everything. Even now I know the previous person holding my position so we want to have a meeting, and we agreed that it will happen for the next LCP [R8].
And respondents themselves claim that they will be accessible for anybody who needs their help, despite the inevitable resigning from this organization:
I am not finished with AIESEC <…> I will be included at least as a consultant and <…> as a mentor for the next OCP, as alumni, as … [R1];
There is also the website where they can find my personal contacts and approach me <…> I think I am quite accessible [R3];
They can contact me [R4].
Also respondents recognize the positive influence of the organizational structure on KS as they consider it as well-developed and increasing diversity and framing responsibilities:
I think organizational structure is fine; there are no problems [R1];
AIESEC is a huge organization, 60,000 people; it has an amazing great structure <…> it is really easy to share knowledge in projects <…> We organize the conference, but in structure the main is AIESEC Russia and
74
National MC, that’s why we have to show them the results of our work every month; we have to show this knowledge, to share with each other, because we know that they will ask us about this later [R5];
Organizational structure of AIESEC affects KS positively because <…> it increases diversity in the organization and being able to understand diversity and share <…> the way things are structured, the way we allocate members to various teams... we notice that it throws all members into a diverse team [R7];
Mainly I [PM] was the information point for AI and MC, but also I didn’t hold any information from my VPs, it was equally shared among us, and they would share this information with the other helpers. Between me and VPs, we all knew everything, except some personal things, for example, personal contacts or [feelings] <…> I think it was the only way; in management there should always be one ultimate responsible for the things, someone who sees the big picture, and knows that one part of his job is to accumulate this information and to share it, to make it known by the necessary people. I am not sure if there is any other way in this type of assignments [R9];
In AIESEC it was more concrete, more specific, it was very clear to me. I think it helped to know that there is a structure, there is the PM that would give you more information, and the more you look up at the hierarchy, the more information you can get, the more experience is there, so I think it affected in the positive way [R10].
The relationships in AIESEC are important not only among the members of the organization, but also among its bigger organizational units. Some respondents firmly argued that there is no competition among members, projects or LCs because they have different objectives and tasks while seeking to achieve common organizational goals:
Not so much [competition] between team members from the same project because they have different types of tasks; there are hardly two people given the same tasks [R4];
[In] the same company everyone will be asking different [things]: as a project [team] we contact Corporate Social Responsibility department of the company, but the Incoming Exchange [selling] team will be talking to Human Resources [department]. They are different, they do not compete with each other; they just take different aspects [R2];
No, there was no competition because firstly, the projects were different, secondly, we needed to do all the projects <…> they [projects] were just very different. There were different commitments to this project compared to other projects [R10];
I don’t think there is competition between projects or departments because the structure is done and to achieve the organizational objectives there should not be any competition [R3];
75
I don’t see the competition there, because success in one LC doesn’t mean that the other LC lost [R8].
Meanwhile other interviewees recognize that some competition may still exist, mainly due to the same targets in terms of participants or supporters:
For example, [if you] organize same conferences in different parts of the country and you have only one target audience - in these cases you will be competitors. When you are competitors, it is not easy to share knowledge that you have done in another team [R5];
[For example], promotion teams: if they are targeting a company, and other project is targeting the same [company], we couldn’t share information sometimes <…> sometimes it happens like that: if a company decides to give certain amount of money for a project, and several teams go to the [same] company, they will exhaust the amount agreed. <…> So sometimes the teams wouldn’t share, because it means they will get fewer amounts of in-kind or in-cash funds [R7].
For example, we couldn’t raise [funds] from AI partners from the same companies in Russia [R9].
This may cause issues for KS because, as Egor Utkin openly states, “if there is competition, it is really hard to manage knowledge that you have” [R5]. Nevertheless, straightaway respondents explain how these issues are being solved in AIESEC by having one responsible senior person or via meetings and agreements among the parts:
If there are responsible for all projects, they can help the teams with their knowledge <…> if in the very beginning two presidents of [different] projects have a meeting, they will share the problem, the reason why they are competitors; in this case it is not hard to continue work, the rules are set up at the meeting with another project [R5];
[If] a company gives a certain amount of money [for all the teams], we normally share the information with the VP External Relations who has team meetings with Sales [team]. When he notices that various teams are targeting the same company, he either makes the sales call himself or asks them to make it [but] he will divide this partnership among the teams [R7];
People from different LCs and, more importantly, the EB of the LCs are having more personal relationships with people from different LCs <…> This is one of the things that help a lot between LC to LC cooperation [R4].
Indeed, some respondents talked quite a lot about cooperation between different departments in the form of KS, establishing links or even working together; the main reasons are the willingness to achieve organizational goals and mutually dependent success:
One of the LCs came up with the idea to make a summer camp <…> and trainings with the international interns. We decided that we would support
76
the LC as an MC in this idea <…> We got involved in supporting this LC and by the summer they managed to realize 19 more exchanges, so if with this [‘Fk’] project we did 8 exchanges, with the other project organized by LC we did 19 <…> Definitely we shared some knowledge from this [‘Fk’] project which helped them <…> if we didn’t get involved at that point... the LC didn’t have as much experience as we had as an MC, so they really needed out support, I think in the right moment we thought about going there and helping them; that was an important step [R10];
There are External Relations and Sales departments, but at some point they do work together - when they go to companies [R2];
Sometimes you don’t know one connection, [but] you can have it in other departments; that’s why at the beginning of my term I have done this matrix [structure] with my team, so they can ask [and] understand the way they can collaborate with others; it is useful [R3];
In Ghana <…> we have a lot of cooperation <…> we normally go all out to connect with those who affect our success - to be able to know what they are doing, to cooperate with them <…> normally before you start, you draw up a job description matrix, where you <…> draw the direct or indirect links to the members or people in your field. [For example,] the VP External Relations draws a job description metrics where he or she connects with the PM, with the team leaders for promotions, the Sales team or the VP Incoming Exchange team - anyone in the LC who does sales. The VP External Relations would directly or indirectly connect and then engage with them to be able to make sales in general better so that his measures of success at the end of the AIESEC year will be better [R7].
Another important aspect of organizational structure is whether and how job roles are defined, especially the one of PM. The comments of respondents can be classified mostly according to whether the job description was not defined at all or was defined but not very strictly, leaving freedom for additional decisions.
Several respondents said that they were not constrained by any job descriptions, but were responsible for the project as a whole, including KS:
We didn’t have working hours or something like that; we managed the whole project without that. We had only few deadlines connected with Corporate Relations and Public Relations [teams]; we had to consider those days. Apart from that, we had all freedom to decide when we want to do something and what the deadline is [R1];
I had total autonomy. Some decisions [such as] financial matters, I had to make together with my LCP, EB, MC, but the rest (the way I coordinate my team and so on) was mine [R3];
I don’t know exactly what was written in my job description, I am not sure that I had one. I was just responsible for everything. Of course, I was responsible for all the information flow, responsible to give relevant info
77
to AI and MC, to make sure that all VPs know everything that they need [R9].
Others explained that although their job descriptions were clearly defined, they had flexibility to act according to the circumstances and to make decisions on KS processes:
Job description was defined. I got accurate descriptions: what should I do, what were my responsibilities. However, [in] many of the projects in AIESEC [that] I have participated in, a lot of flexibility is needed because sometimes if you stick to the job description, [it] is not going to do anything [to help achieve results]. You need to act according to the circumstances <…> it [job description] was defined, [but] the final line was: “and everything that can or might happen during the project” [R4];
I have some documents, and official job description, but you will do a lot of things that are not in this job description documents, like in companies, because this job description comes from previous years and who wrote it may not be totally familiar with the job to be done <…> I can make any decision about KS, it allows me to create new ways to share [R8].
In African projects, managers had even less flexibility because the central focus was on clear job descriptions:
At national level, we already had job descriptions for all the people, we had a goal of the project, concrete numbers to achieve, so it was quite clear for me and it was supposed to be clear for the rest of the team [R6];
Before you apply for the position, the job descriptions are clearly cut out <…> it includes guidelines regarding KS. <…> At the end of the project you are supposed to have achieved [certain] outcomes, results, outputs <…> at the end of the project you should have documented [them] <…> [also] you are given a set of guidelines [with] regard to how you have to interact with team leaders and members <…> regardless of the job description, you are allowed to come up with your own initiative. Sometimes you are allowed to explore, but the emphasis is laid on the job description [R7].
Additionally, talking about the job descriptions of other than PM positions, respondents also mentioned that the responsibilities to share knowledge in some of them were included:
A couple of times I had to give feedback for the person who was giving me transition for the position. It is in their job description to give some kind of tips, ideas for how to do it [the project] better [R4];
VP External Relations was responsible for information flow from the team to external support and partners. Every team member was responsible for information flow to his team if there was one. For example, VP Delegates: it was written in her job description that she needs to make sure that all
78
relevant information is known by all potential delegates of the conference [R9].
Most of the respondents criticized the flexibility for KS activities because it causes instability and too strong dependency on the person in the position; interviewees favored clear guidelines for KS and even proposed to include them in job descriptions; they suggest that centralized knowledge management could increase KS:
Maybe if you put that information management to the job descriptions – some measure of success, then maybe you would do more, but until it is left to a person to decide how much effort he wants to achieve, you will never have that steady results, it will depend on the person who is in EB, MC etc.; it just has to be systematically done [R1];
As a person you decide how much to give. Maybe I was a dedicated person: there were things that were not in my job description, for example, informal team events, but it was my choice to do it [R3];
The communication guidelines were not included in the project job descriptions. For most of the projects, it is not defined, at least until now <...> [My initiative would be to include] because all the time when we are having transition for the PM <…> it is always mentioned but not written anywhere [R4];
Without clear guidelines or job description people tend to wander <…> with this guidelines, they regularly have quarterly meetings with PM and team leaders to evaluate the state of the project [R7];
We don’t have structure, [rather] more random. If I am LCP and I want to get information from the previous LCP, I have to call him and find him. He will share, but [it] is not structured. Although there are some positions with transitions <…> [still] I think we can do much better [R8].
7.1.4. Organizational culture and climate
It is important to notice that respondents often related AIESEC structure with its culture; in particular, they claimed that the existing structure is favourable for KS because it is combined with the favourable organizational culture:
The structure is good when the [favourable] culture is in place <…> good structure works well when there is a good culture <…> This chain [of hierarchy] makes it [KS] more difficult, but I think in this kind of culture... <…> it would always be quite easy to get an answer if you needed to [R10];
Because of our culture, it is not hard to work with people or different structure. For example, sitting in your small city you can write to the president of AI, not like in [other] companies where you can’t write something to your director <…> in AIESEC it is totally different; it is really easy to share knowledge [R5];
79
[KS] is not very structured, but organizational culture is helping in KS. We don’t have structure but [we have] organizational culture that is good for that, and some processes that are obligatory in KS [R8].
So not only the organizational structure is important. Also “the kind of relationships that are between members, which is more of culture and attitude issues” play a significant role [R10]. Alexandra Bese says that: “It is hard to explain AIESEC organizational culture because it is so rich <…> [it] bonds the members” [R3], while Mohamed Ouf adds that “this is why members are still working in AIESEC” [R2]. Culture affects KS via organizational values and attitudes. AIESEC even has a term “AIESEC’er”, which means a member who has internalized the organizational values and attitudes:
AIESEC experience makes you absorb those values, makes you absorb those attitudes and with that you become an AIESEC’er [R1];
[If a] person doesn’t apply all AIESEC values, then he cannot be an AIESEC’er [R6].
From the interviews it is apparent that AIESEC culture affects KS in the organization positively:
Organizational culture of AIESEC affects KS positively <…> values affect KS very positively, really well [R7];
Culture is actually doing for AIESEC much more good, actually helps in that KS <…> I think the whole process that you go through as an AIESEC’er is actually what enables you to do that sharing, what pushes you to do it [R1].
Probably because of their importance, the organizational values and attitudes are presented to the new recruits from the very beginning and developed afterwards, so that members are ready to engage in KS once they have an opportunity:
We learn it in the first training, in the first contact – when a new member joins AIESEC, they are told that in AIESEC you learn and in AIESEC you share knowledge [R10];
When members join AIESEC, the AIESEC way [the attitudes and values and the guidelines] sets [the context] for a different kind of thinking [R7];
Each person… you are actually having them, teaching them, you are building awareness, creating those attitudes which is most important, creating those values <…> and when they need to share the knowledge, they are already ready to do it, they see why that is important <…> They are all long enough in AIESEC, so they can really know that <…> so it didn’t take that much effort explaining them why it is important to have all the information [R1].
As cultures differ from organization to organization, it is important to understand what the organizational values that enable KS in AIESEC are. Although all AIESEC values
80
are stated and explained in their main corporate website (AIESEC, 2011a), only the ones commented by the interviewees will be discussed in this section.
The most important value in terms of KS in AIESEC is sharing and learning which obviously influence KS very positively:
Values of sharing with each person, with each AIESEC’er [R1];
The point of AIESEC is to learn and to share your experience <…> in AIESEC you are encouraged to be very flexible and share knowledge [R3];
People are <…> ready to share everything with each other [R5];
Of course, a real AIESEC’er is a person who is always ready to share <…> from real AIESEC’er [it] is really easy to get the information [R6];
It is inherent culture in the organization to share and connect because that’s how we learn in the organization and that’s how we grow <…> some of our values push us to act locally but think globally, so we get [into] forums, international conferences, regional conferences…we share the realities of our projects, we write reports <…> I noticed that is not just about what they [AIESEC’ers] learned and they keep it to themselves, but they always pick up the next best opportunity to share [R7];
All AIESEC members know that AIESEC is a platform for learning, a platform for sharing experience and for getting experience, for sharing and getting knowledge <…> I think this is a part of our culture, a part of each member’s attitude that we learn and we teach others to learn and to get knowledge [R10].
Another key value that increases KS is openness for new experience and knowledge as it both encourages searching for and giving knowledge; also, it helps to perceive different kinds of knowledge:
Openness is not one of our [official] values, but we are trying to be as open as possible to each other and to give feedback as often and as good as possible <…> Not a lot of people think about it consciously but they are doing this <…> people accepted to AIESEC are usually open, with global view, willing to perceive different kind of information from different kinds of people and projects [R4];
People are easy going, open-minded <…> ready to take something new <…> that’s why it is good to share knowledge in projects [R5];
[AIESEC’er] should be open in general, open to himself, to other people, to the world, to the changes, and to think in very different ways… [be] very open-minded <…> these people want to ask questions [R6];
81
AIESEC’ers are very open in KS and want to share in conferences or events. This is really good in AIESEC <…> they will share, people are more open to share [R8];
People in AIESEC are used to share their personal connections with everyone to make it a better project. I am not sure if I would be able to do that in any other kind of organization… this very open and willing to do, to make things happen in AIESEC culture was the basis for what we did [R9].
Openness for innovations is strengthened by one more value of AIESEC – diversity, which allows for more diverse knowledge:
I think the culture differences and the diversity of the organization is another plus for KS <…> there is someone who is not like you who has information on whatever you need, but has a different culture, is from a different environment <…> you get to know the person, you get to share with the person and then you get the information that you need <…> you approach someone who is culturally and academically different [R7].
Other AIESEC values include the following: “striving for excellence” [R6, R7], meaning the willingness “to make things in a best way possible” [R9]; “acting sustainably” and “socially responsibly” [R1, R2, R6, R7, R8, R9], meaning the willingness “to develop individuals, change yourself and society” [R8], “to improve things” [R6],“to make a particular thing better”[R7]; supporting and inspiring each other [R6, R9]. AIESEC members believe that engaging in KS can help to implement activities that are in line with these values [R1, R2, R6, R7, R8, R9].
7.1.5. Empowering leadership
From the comments made by the respondents, it can be seen that these leaders were encouraging KS inside the team by creating the awareness of the importance of KS and the habits to use KS mechanisms, by motivating them to be active in KS and to work together, or by sharing the decision making power; this led to a more intensive KS among team members:
You [as PM] have to create common understanding; it is something that you put expectations on, on the first day <…> you have to show it by your example first of all <…> it is very important to show them how important is to share knowledge, to share information, and why they need to do it, and sometimes you [as PM] have to create the habit if you work with new members who are not that used to using [certain KS mechanisms] <…> when the habit is present, you just need to motivate them and show them how important it is [R1];
You [as PM] coordinate people, you offer support, tell what they should do. People usually do <…> it somehow encouraged the sharing of knowledge and experience because there were members with and without experience. I always tried to encourage them to work together and share [R3];
82
I always encourage them to share as much as they can. Usually, when I notice that somebody is not active, I tell them [R8];
I was not on the top of VPs and other managers. I was always trying to be on the same level as them and share all the decisions <…> you cannot make a right decision if you don’t have all the information. This kind of democracy within the team helped us to make better decisions because all the information was there <…> All the successes I had were depending on this ability to make people talk and give you the real reasons for their actions and to help them [R9].
7.2. INTERPERSONAL AND TEAM CHARACTERISTICS
7.2.1. Team characteristics and processes
Talking about team characteristics, respondents provided most information about diversity and social interaction, which will be discussed further on. With regards to a team as a whole, Dušan Kostadinović asserted that team members encouraged each other to share knowledge [R8]; Alexandra Bese explained that during the selection of her team members she was “interested in personalities and if people match together”; she “had a team of compatible people” [R3]; and Anastasia Markelova stressed the importance of tolerance in the team, because otherwise members may offend each other [R9].
7.2.2. Diversity
Egor Utkin said that “if you [PM] have the same type of people in your team, it is easy to work with them because they like only one form of KS [i.e. certain mechanisms] [R5]. However, other respondents advocated more the diversity as an enabler for KS because individuals with various backgrounds all together possess more knowledge than a homogenous group, also because characters or genders complement each other:
I think the culture differences and the diversity of the organization is another plus for KS <…> we are able to share more information with those who are not like us <…> I think that diversity affects KS because ideas about how things can or should be done… functional team has more information at the disposal on [that] <…> plus most of the interns come with their best practices of whatever they were involved in <…> So it was really good having a diverse team academically and culturally [R7];
Their characters are different <…> [but] everybody found his place. It wouldn’t be good if they [team members] were all the same, all silent or all loud… Eventually all the information is shared [R8];
Team should be diverse in terms of sex definitely – it affects communication extremely because guys and girls see this question a little bit differently: men sometimes they make it easier … if there is a conflict,
83
men are the ones who help to resolve it <…> [also] it is important for the team to be from different backgrounds, of course [R9].
7.2.3. Social networks
In AIESEC a very important factor affecting KS is strong social relations among members. Interviewees asserted that in their project teams they were very close emotionally, they were first of all friends; they trusted and understood each other:
We also really get along great and we are now friends and that is one of the best teams that I had <…> we understand each other <…> It wasn’t that you are working with the colleague, but you are working with a friend. You are telling them everything [R1];
We created strong friendship. We are friends until now [R3];
Usually it is <…> better to talk to your team because they believe you, trust you <…> [can] talk about personal things [R5];
Even aside the project we had to have personal relations… It made us better because you knew personalities of the people you were working with, so you knew how to treat them [R7];
Friends who are working shoulder to shoulder <…> in the end, the relationships are different, but during the project I tried to keep friendly relationships with all of them <…> at some point we were all very bond together. Close to the conference we (core team) were spending all the time together, we were really close and trusting each other most of the time <…> and sharing even personal problems [R9].
PMs developed such relationships, for example, by trying to know more about the personal life and free time of their team members [R1], by “forming bonds with them to be close enough” [R7], or by trying to “keep everybody on the same level” [R9]. Although still at the beginning of his project, Dušan Kostadinović is also already thinking about encouraging his team to spend more time together [R8].
Respondents see the positive correlation between strong social ties and KS:
Positively because they [team members] are more open to share <…> thanks to informal session and personal relations. So it makes them more open to share [R7];
For sure, if you have good relationships with them [team members], they will share more information <…> people wouldn’t tell you what’s happening if they don’t feel close enough <…> the informal knowledge and information sharing is really essential. You need to be in good relationship with people in order to be sure that they tell you truth, important things at necessary moment. It was vital to make sure that you are friends and that you are close, that you share everything. You can
84
never put KS in strict process, it would never work. You need to have good informal contact with ppl, to make the KS work [R9];
Actually, respondents think that physical proximity affects the social ties both inside and outside the project team: people who can communicate physically share more knowledge while when there is a distance barrier, less knowledge is shared; nevertheless, AIESEC’ers try to solve this issue by renting a flat together or meeting more often:
At the end of the day what you learned you pass it to those you are working directly with [R7];
I am living with three MC members, so it is much easier to get information [R8];
AIESEC’ers have LC office but you can’t really work there. You come just for a meeting and everyone works from home, so I think this is the main challenge <…> [so] even some EB are renting a flat to be there together… when there are a lot of questions or news popping up during the day, you can just say it all to all members, to make sure that everyone knows, considers this… or if you have a problem or question and maybe don’t know answer, you just ask someone, or if you have some doubts you just ask for advice… it was really important to be in the same space <…> we had the office [R9];
AIESEC is pretty much different from working in some other company because you are not working in the office. You are not there for 9 hours per day, you cannot communicate physically, so you need to use different tools [R1];
It would have been more effective if I was able to be with them at least once [R6].
7.2.4 Team development stage
In the projects investigated some team members knew each other before but others met for the first time, for example:
Two or three VPs were my good friends before, but other two not. The rest of the team –some yes and some no [R9];
[With] people in Norway we knew each other very well because we were working together for so long, meeting every day in the office etc. [R10];
I knew before two girls, but not very close, and [I didn’t know at all] the guy and others… [R1];
In ‘SumMeet’ [conference] I knew the 6 LCPs because we were in one president team, so worked with them before <…> In ‘You are welcome’ project I didn’t know [my team members before] <…> In the International Congress in Kenya I didn’t know anyone [R5];
85
We are from different LCs so we didn’t know each other; just two of them knew each other before [R8].
In any case, respondents think that it is important to get to know each other first; barriers such as physical distance and virtual communication prolong this process:
Knowing each other, in any team, is the first step to start with. We tried in the beginning to get to know each other on Skype <…> to start a team and really feel committed to it, but it was definitely more challenging because of the channel itself and because we never met, we never had nice time together <…> I think it took us longer time to get to know each other to get adapted to each other, to understand each other than if we had a physical meeting [R10];
I am people-oriented <…> My focus is <…> bonding and team building in order to realize our goals <…> They don’t need to be best friends, but need to get to know each other [R8].
However, when the team is formed and there is a common understanding, it is easier to communicate and share knowledge because the PM knows how to approach different team members, or because they are familiar with the KS tools and the rules about how to use them:
After some point I understood [them and] that it was necessary to take an individual approach and to communicate differently with them: some needed a push all the time like sending reminders, even calling them; others will not need that [R10];
If you know people, of course it is easier because you know what kind of tools they are ready to use <…> you don’t need to set up rules how to use these tools, everybody knows. If you don’t know [the team], first you need to understand who they are, how they can get this information effectively. So you need to show all the tools that we can use and choose the best <…> after, you have to talk about the rules how to use these tools [R5].
7.3. CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS
7.3.1. Collectivistic –individualistic culture
Asked about the characteristics of their national culture, respondents did not provide much information that would allow putting it on the collectivistic –individualistic or vertical-horizontal dimensions. Even to a purposeful inquiry the interviewees answered that they were not sure, for instance:
Russia is somewhere in between: we were more collectivistic [before, but] it was more artificial. Now I think youth is more individualistic... This is a very subjective question. Everyone in the team was doing everything first for the success of the team, but also for their own success [R9].
Nevertheless, one particular remark was made by Mohamed Ouf:
86
Egyptian culture would be collectivistic. People here always prefer doing everything as a group <…> it enhances the trust between people [R2].
Also, Anastasia Markelova comments on group and individual approaches in general and indicates a positive correlation of KS with the first one and a negative with the latter approach:
The desire to be successful as a team of course affected KS positively most of the time <…> I think the individualistic approach affect negatively because if you first think of your success, you maybe not share something that <…> could have been something useful for the others. When you think about the team, you share everything and there is high chance that all information needed is said out loud and understood by people that need it [R9].
7.3.2. National culture
Respondents had much more to tell about their national culture and about the cultures where the projects took place, in case they are different.
According to Pavel Valkanov, Bulgarians usually do not experience “problems communicating with everyone”, but they “usually have troubles perceiving other Bulgarians as more experienced or as people that they have to [listen to]”; however, he claims that in AIESEC this characteristic is “not 100%, but 99.9% wrong” [R4].
Egor Utkin from Russia maintains that in Kenya, where he was involved in the management of the International Congress, “it is not that important to share all the knowledge” [R5]. He is certain that in Kenya this “really affects KS processes”; how exactly, this PM did not explain, but a reasonable conclusion can be made that people with such perceptions share less knowledge [R5].
Talking about his own country, Egor Utkin is more specific, and expresses an opinion that in Russia “it is hard to share when knowledge looks like feedback”, because people think that they “can do everything better than others can advise”; however, “if knowledge looks like knowledge, it is easy to get and give it” [R5]. Anastasia Markelova, as a Russian, stresses the social contact, i.e. explained in the section about team characteristics and social ties, stronger personal relationship facilitates KS [R9].
Not much information during the interviews was obtained about the influence of Serbian culture on KS, but according to Milos Djuricanin, it is not very favourable for managerial, “how we do it”, KS [R1]. Dušan Kostadinović agrees that in Serbia “there is no much sharing” because the “structure is old, from communism, and hard to change” [R8].
Elena Culai compares her own, Moldavian, culture with Norwegian culture where she managed the ‘Fk’ project. In Norway KS is “much more structured” and “more concrete”, so “it takes much less time” while in Moldova “KS is more verbal” and intensive, so it may result in “skipping some important aspects just because of getting lost in details” [R10]. She concludes that KS in both of these cultures is good, “just different” [R10].
87
As a Ghanaian, Maclean Commey remarks that some people in Ghana tend to “keep knowledge to themselves” or “share it [only] with those who are in a similar sector or ethnicity”, which sometimes makes it “hard to share knowledge and information”; however, Maclean Commey also notices that this is not common in AIESEC Ghana [R7].
Maryna Silchenko is Ukranian, but she was a coordinating manager of the projects in Africa, with a focus on Ghana in the first year, so she evaluates Ghanaian culture in comparison to the one in Ukraine. First of all, she believes that national culture does not influence KS directly, but rather via having an impact on the way the person thinks and shares information [R6]. She gives an example how participants came late to the conference in Ghana without early warning [R6], which is in line with the first comment of Maclean Commey above. Additionally, Maryna Silchenko explains that KS in Ghana is more intensive and effective if it is done in person than via Internet, also with the “helping, supporting” approach rather than “giving directions” [R6]. Finally, Maryna Silchenko highlights the importance of adapting KS to the local culture as early as possible and sharing with other project teams the knowledge about these cultural differences affecting KS [R6].
Despite the cultural differences related to KS in the countries of the projects investigated, it seems that AIESEC organizational culture prevails: respondents maintain that they do not perceive significant differences among different national AIESEC organizational units in terms of communication and KS:
I can’t say that we [Romanians] have specific characteristics because when I was in Kenya this year as part of the International Congress team, it was amazing to discover that we [AIESEC’ers from Romania, Canada, U.S. …] have so many things in common, I felt that we are “on the same page” [R3];
[AIESEC culture] doesn’t delete your national culture, but you can feel that people from AIESEC Bulgaria, U.S.A., Brazil or whatever have a lot of similarities in doing projects <…> In current environment, [national culture] in AIESEC doesn’t affect much [R4];
Things are better in AIESEC and KS in AIESEC is a way better than KS nationally [R7];
It is more about organizational culture than national culture [R8].
7.4. INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS
7.4.1. Education, work experience
From various remarks of the respondents, it can be seen that experience facilitates KS because experienced AIESEC members know how to structure and share knowledge better and have positive attitudes towards KS as well as emotional intelligence to understand people and perceive different points of view; also, experience increases confidence and motivation to engage in KS:
88
I have guys who already have project experience, and know how to share <…> all have some AIESEC experience, [they are] not new members, so it makes things easier, because we all know basics… I saw that in the first meeting they started to share… [R8];
[one girl] had a lot of experience in university, that give her an idea how to cope with different characters <…> [another girl] had good attitude because she had different experience before in university and different projects [R4];
You have to have emotional intelligence to understand other persons’ point of view. Since I joined AIESEC I have dealt with a lot of strong personalities, and this experience communicating with them was helpful because sometimes I learnt from them and sometimes I was the one that showed them that this attitude is not right [R4];
Mostly what helps me to understand people and make sure that the information, knowledge that I share with them or that is shared between us is understood and received correctly… what helped me the most was my previous experience that I had as LCP where I had to deal with a hundred people throughout the year <…> I would say experience is the most important [thing] that helped me to manage the people and information that is shared between the people, to structure it better so [that] people can understand [R10];
I feel confident that I can share enough relevant information with the guy who is going to do the same project or projects of the same scale <…> It is a very powerful motive [R4];
[Working in] the project leaves you with a lot of information with regards to reality; it is different from books, websites <…> you are involved directly, and it makes you up to date with the things happening or the sector you are involved in the project <….> it affects your willingness to share with others <…> it pushes you to share with others, with so many people [R7].
7.4.2. Personality
Consistent with one of the organizational values discussed in the section about AIESEC organizational culture, respondents describe themselves or other team members as open-minded and talkative personalities; this affects KS positively because such people are more eager to communicate with others:
I am really open, extravert, cheerful, I love talking to people, I love sharing with them, talking about ideas, what we can do… [R1];
I am always open to know people from different cultures, different backgrounds <…> since I am open to other points of views, it will always open my mind to get more ideas and more information. I talk to people a lot [R2];
89
Flexible people, open-minded – general characteristics of members in the team [R3];
Most [team members] were open and flexible <…> it is easier to communicate <…> One girl [team member] was very self-aware; I had no problems communicating with her, giving her tasks and tracking her performance. She was a very positive person, although she didn’t have much experience before [R4];
For example, [in] feedback [sessions], if a person is closed, [he or she] doesn’t want to take any advice from you <…> it is easier to share knowledge with people if they are ready to take it <…> open-minded people [R5];
Of course it is very important to be communicative and outgoing [R6].
A relevant personal characteristic to KS seems to be empathy; it helps to understand people and how to approach them as well as encourage them to share their experiences:
I am <…> warm, caring about people in general [R3];
I am concerned about other people’s emotions and how they would perceive the things that I am saying <…> I am trying to take my time and to perceive different person’s point of view <…> if I think that the person is not right, I try to talk <…> It helps a lot because people with similar weak sides like me share with me information and their experience [R4].
Other personality traits mentioned were motivation and willingness to act, responsibility, ambitiousness, persistency and determination; they affect KS positively, but indirectly because people with such personal features seek for efficiency and goal achievement via KS as it will be explained in the next section:
When I was creating this team, the most important thing for me was <…> their personal energy because I always aim for those high level energy teams where always someone is active and make others move [R1];
I am determined – if I am convinced with something, I will achieve it [R2];
I was looking for <…> people with potential and motivation <…> with a will to do things… ambitious <…> I am very ambitious, perfectionist [R3];
Some people were more successful because they were persistent… [R6];
When people are <…> very responsible, they organize their time in such a way that they would have time to make reports, to make notes, to have a very good structure of everything that is happening, and make sure that they have it stored and others can take it afterwards, and we also can look back and take some learning from that [R10].
90
7.4.3. Self-efficiency
Many answers to why respondents got involved in KS can be summarized as seeking for efficiency in the project; KS helped to gain a clear understanding of the project progress, to find synergies and to solve issues, so to work effectively and achieve all project goals:
It was important for me to know what is actually going on in the team <…> They didn’t keep any information for themselves because they can damage the project, because someone cannot work without information [R1];
Overview about everything that happens in the project <…> in order to overcome it [issues], to work on it [R2];
[We share information] online, so that we all could know what’s happening, if somebody wanted to know something at any point of time [R3];
To motivate each other by showing results <…>, to work effectively – if you don’t do this [KS], you don’t know how your team works currently <…> [KS provides] clear understanding of the project <…> you have exact project at exact time and only one deadline, so you have to share information with all your team because you have only one goal and you have to achieve it <…> all the team is there and you can understand what kind of synergies you have [R5];
If they don’t understand why they work, they don’t see the goal <…> how can they achieve those results <…> [without KS] they would not [be] achieving 100% of project goals or achieving them this year but really going down another year [R6];
Sharing exposes you to a lot of other realities and opens you up to a network of possibilities, people who can directly or indirectly contribute to your project <…> sharing does a lot for your project [R7];
It can be a document [that] each member does for his area <…> That way is easier for me to see what they are working on and how, and good for them to see what the rest of the team is doing, and how. So is shareable. So it is for the efficiency of the project [R8];
[It] would be hard to understand on which level of our main plan we are, if we didn’t discuss what we are doing every day <…> I could get a clear picture what was done <…> to make sure that in the long term we are going to be successful are achieve everything we have planned <…> It is obviously essential that everyone knows everything because this is the only way for me to find the best ever solutions to the issues <…> if someone doesn’t know how to solve a problem, others can help; areas in the project are interconnected <…> [if] everyone knows what’s happening <…>we can see these interconnections and work on the synergy and help
91
each other <…> people talk and share because they really wanted, desired it to make it [project] work and the best way possible [R9].
7.4.4. Perceptions
None of the interviewees related knowledge to power, but Milos Djuricanin, deliberately asked about this, answered that nowadays any information can be found quickly on the Internet, so there is no need “to know everything”, and although he recognized that knowledge and experience may provide “some authority in the team”, it does not hinder KS [R1].
An interesting finding is that the perceived value, or effectiveness, of KS mechanisms also affects KS via the usage of such mechanism. The perception that the KS mechanism is effective because it is used-friendly and familiar to people has a positive impact on its usage and KS:
It [documents, guidelines] was quite clear, user-friendly, all decorated in nice way – with pictures, bright, short and at the same time detailed, it looked quite professional [R6];
The Google Groups is good because people have a habit of using emails, so it is something natural, they already check their emails and they can check everything else on the group, they don’t need to pay special attention to it <…> Again, people are spending a lot of time on Facebook, at least they check for notifications, Facebook became daily routine, natural <…> [we used tools] that all my members are familiar wtih, so we didn’t have to create new habits, to educate them [R1];
Facebook is good for that [KS] because everybody is all the time there, so whenever they find something interesting they just put it there <…> it is easier, because you don’t connect to work, [it is] like having fun [R8].
On the other hand, if people are not very familiar with or used to the KS mechanism, they avoid using it and do not engage in KS:
No, we didn’t have … It is a good key practice, teams should have feedback sessions, but at that point I wasn’t familiar with them –this is the reason [R3];
I didn’t upload the report on myaiesec.net <…> I just didn’t think about it [R3];
Also you can use myaiesec.net to put documents but usually it is not that effective, it usually changes a lot, every year… [R5];
Some people knew how to use [Internet], but it was not that popular [in Africa], <…> [so] they didn’t check emails [R6].
7.5. MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS
92
7.5.1. Beliefs of knowledge ownership
As none of the respondents related KS to the beliefs of knowledge ownership, two of them were asked about it deliberately. The answers were not strict: respondents think that knowledge created and gained in projects belongs to both the organization and them, at least when the project is finished; in any case, this does not seem to affect KS significantly:
Honestly, to me… no, it belongs to me at this moment but in the end, when there is someone new in my position, I will tell them everything, so it doesn’t matter for me [R2];
All the documents and folders… we have created and stored, so that AIESEC can access it and benefit from it in the future, but the experience that I got from this project and all the people that were involved <…> we took all this knowledge for the rest of our lives. Different, but it belongs to both AIESEC and each one of us. [Affect to KS?] I don’t know… [R10].
7.5.2. Perceived personal benefits
As one of the main benefits most of the respondents consider experience and self-development:
It is something that adds to you <…> experience going to a company, dealing with them, dealing with different people with different points of view. It always adds to you personality <…> it is self-development seeking [R2];
It is really important to share everything you know and you have, because this is the only way you can evolve as a person <….> We all gain personal experience, we learn to be more flexible [R3];
It is not about the help, it is about personal development <…> In short time you can communicate with different companies and get contacts <…> you can improve your presentation skills because you make different speeches, you even go to TV and different programs to share the idea of your project and how you work <…> so you will have motivation, and for creating this project you will share knowledge [R5];
It improves so many skills like public speaking, training skills, team management <…> It creates opportunities and avenues for you as a person… and even to start a career in the particular area that you are involved in [R7];
People will tell you that they are in AIESEC because they learn a lot, they meet a lot of people …so motives are different, and that’s why people are more open to share [R8];
Personally it was huge experience <…> what I learnt: how to manage and how to work in a team virtually, how to work with a team that is
93
completely different culturally <…> how to work with the people that are very experienced <…> how to transform it [the terminology of the funding organization] into AIESEC terms and how to transmit to others… transforming so that people can understand it <…> a lot of things that I learnt [in AIESEC] I am using in my daily life, in my current work [R10];
<…> because we all know that in AIESEC we are all not experienced - a lot of students, lack of experience… that’s why it is important that we share [R10].
Another important perceived personal benefit is the opportunity for networking and establishing social contacts:
All of us are still friends, we are spending time together – this is a personal achievement [R3];
[It] increases your network of contacts because after the project is done you are still connected to the network that you were able to build up and the people you met [R7].
Other benefits are related more to happiness and satisfaction coming from the development of others and contributing to the society:
In AIESEC, I actually developed that motive that I want really to work with benefits for society, for benefits for young people, work on really creating something, something that matters, social change, positive change [R1];
This [trainings] is how we share information, this is how we develop people [R2];
Developing was always my first and the most important objective. If I thought that by sharing this information I will develop this person <…> then I will share and that’s the reason I share <…> We are trying to create some kind of knowledge management system to help processes like transitioning PMs, we want them to have better experience [R4];
For me the best reward was to understand that what I do <…> helps other people to achieve something good in their life <…> My main goal was to develop people <…> I become happy if I realize that I am useful [R6];
The satisfaction when we achieved it was huge, immense, especially knowing that others before couldn’t do it, and we managed to do it, that’s huge personal benefit [R10].
7.5.3. Perceived value of knowledge
Respondents have no doubts that the knowledge they share is useful to its receiver [R1, R3, R4, R6, R10], for example:
94
It is the most valuable when you have all the information from your past team, from the delegates, from everyone included in project <…> this document [that we are preparing] would be important for other projects, it would help <…> It is most important to create that sense of the importance of communicating <…> realize that information that I have is important for others, and information from others is important for me [R1];
Some of the things are not going to be the same, circumstances may change, but in general if they had the opportunity to see what actually happened in different projects and to get the general conclusions, it would be good for them, it is valuable, each and every kind of experience <…> it has good value for the people who are going to come after you [R4];
Definitely this project would be very useful for other countries to know about it: maybe they would take the idea and implement it in their own countries [R10].
However, they also admit that sometimes some knowledge is irrelevant, unreliable or unchecked, or difficult to perceive for the receiver, so it should not be shared; also, what knowledge is shared depends on with whom it is shared: for example, top management usually do not value the details about project implementation:
The information that is not relevant to them or to what they are doing… maybe I am not going to share it [R2];
[If] content [knowledge], the one that you want to give, is not what somebody expects, it can also be hard to share knowledge <…> maybe somebody will ask you, but you know that this information is not good enough, you haven’t checked it before - that’s why you don’t want to give [R5];
I was trying to give all the information to everyone <…> but you always have to have in mind that some of the people are not experienced enough to perceive all things <…> sometimes I had to adjust a bit in order to transmit the right message [R4];
You don’t need to share knowledge that is not important and not urgent. The valuable knowledge will be only in the matrix squares between important and urgent [axes], so that’s why you need to share it [R5];
Of course you don’t need to give to AI information about tools, they don’t need it, but for next team it is really valuable knowledge. So first you need you understand what people you should share with and then understand what kind of knowledge would be valuable for them [R5];
7.5.4. Perceived costs
Interviewees claim that AIESEC members are not afraid to share information about failures in teams because of friendly atmosphere and strong social ties:
95
They [team members] are not afraid of sharing <…> when people feel that they need to tell to someone something, they really need to share some feedback, they always did it <…> I know that when people see that something is not functioning very well, they will tell me <…> because we created that really friendly atmosphere [R1];
Feedback meeting is individual <…> we sit together individually to know what they or others have done wrong from their point of view and how to improve it [R2];
Of course we made mistakes and it wasn’t a shame to tell me… because we had very good relations: it wasn’t that I am the boss and they can’t tell me that they made a mistake [R3];
When I participated in different kinds of projects, mainly from my university, people had some things to share, but they didn’t do it because they were either afraid they wouldn’t be understood or people would ignore them. This attitude in AIESEC is really small [R4];
I think in AIESEC Ghana we encourage sharing more [with] regard to things that went wrong before we even share the successes <…> we share things that didn’t go well with a project with other people interested in knowing so that they also won’t make the same mistakes [R7];
I am not afraid to talk about this [negative feedback] openly [R8];
I think everyone wanted to share all the information because they knew that if there is a problem which seems to be unsolvable, as a team we can solve it <…> [in individual meetings] the person would open up and tell me the real reasons of their failure in some area [R9].
However, developing the topic more, respondents acknowledge that sometimes knowledge is not shared because the project did not go well and/or its objectives were not achieved; also when members feel very strong responsibility for their tasks:
Last two years actually project was not functioning that well <…> information management was really forgotten <…> when I actually came to be a project manager I only received few papers from last year. I didn’t have any information about <…> how they organized it, when, whom they called [R1];
[Why sometimes people don’t want to share knowledge?] Maybe they just didn’t achieve much, so they were demotivated before leaving [R2];
Problems, challenges, mistakes… not achieving results – it is hard to share it as knowledge [R5];
Sometimes you hold information for yourself because you are afraid to look weak or unprofessional <…> for example, [one member] kept the information <…> because she was afraid that she will turn everyone down; so this high responsibility has negative implications too [R9].
96
Respondents do not think that KS takes a lot of time, especially because in AIESEC it can be integrated in the informal activities, unless, of course, it is hindered by some technical issues:
I don’t think it is about time consumption [R3];
[As] the level of IT development in Ghana or in Africa is not so good, sometimes communication was taking a lot of time <…> [but] if it is a smaller group, it might take less time or be more structured, more accessible <…> everything could be faster <…> but it was as it was supposed to be… [R6].
Time shouldn’t be a problem because most of the activities in AIESEC are done in an informal atmosphere <…> you can share knowledge and ideas in informal events like hanging out [R7];
It [meetings] was not that bad, it was nice, because we were having fun at the same time, I tried to <…> make it as a conversation among friends <…> we could make it over tea or lunch [R9].
However, from other, unintentional, remarks it can be seen that sometimes KS was actually perceived as time-consuming by team members or KS did not take place due to the lack of time:
Sometimes people maybe think that these weekly meetings are a bit too long, and they were a little bit frustrated sometimes that we are spending 2 hours just to sit and talk when we can work at the same <…> I think it was just right amount of time, but for some team members it seemed too long [R9];
I need to finish my things so I don’t have time to think about different projects [R8];
I don’t think it is posted anywhere on myaiesec.net or other channels <…> it was just too little time to think about others as well, we just had our own timeline and deadlines, I think it was no time to think about spreading knowledge about the project to anyone else [R10].
In any case, interviewees devote their time to KS because they consider it as an investment:
You can look at it like you are spending your time but you can also look at it as investing your time; I always choose that I am investing my time; it is very positive [R1];
This is an investment of time [R6];
If they [project teams] invest a little bit more time in planning these activities together, they would save time [R8];
Sometimes it doesn’t look necessary when you are spending this time but afterwards you understand that it [KS] was necessary [R9].
97
An interesting finding is that respondents without inquiry expressed an opinion that KS may depend on the timing itself, i.e. knowledge needs to be documented when it is created in order to keep the subjectivity and contextual information and shared when it is the most necessary:
I didn’t write the OCP diary <…> At the end it was a relief that everything finished, and I wanted to put it [off] a little bit [more] <…> after that I didn’t have the same quality and quantity of things to share… because <…> now I’m going to be more objective and omit purposely or without purpose some of the things that happened [R4];
It is important to share at certain point of time because <…> if you find out something too late, you can’t change anything; also it is important not to make it [KS] too early because then people interfere too much into others’ field of work [R9].
7.5.5. Justice
Respondents stressed the transparency in their projects; actually, it can be even claimed that they used KS as a means to make processes and decisions clear to everybody:
I was transparent with the members that I share everything, I don’t keep a word <…> if I am not [transparent], some decisions don’t make sense to them [R2]
I never had any complaints from my team that they don’t know something or I wasn’t sufficiently transparent <…> it helped: when we got to the venue where the conference was held, all the members were so well informed that even if they were not attending our weekly meetings, they felt that they are the part of the team and they are striving for the same objective – a result of this transparency within the team <…> I tried to be very transparent and all the information I had I was always sharing with them [R3];
You have to communicate very often through meetings to have everything clear, so that everyone knows what they have to do <…> it was the most transparent project in AIESEC Serbia [R1];
If I wanted something really to be done and not to waste the time explaining it to the team member, I did it myself. But they probably can’t say that they didn’t have enough work or tasks <…> A project cannot be perfect, and these things will and maybe should happen because they were good learning points, but in general everything was clear [R4].
7.5.6. Interpersonal trust
Interviewees recognize that trust among members is important for KS because then they understand the dependency on each other better and feel stronger responsibility to share
98
knowledge; sometimes PMs intend to create trust while sometimes it is present from the beginning due to the importance of the project and the interdependence of the members:
It is about setting this environment from the beginning of the project to have trust between the members <…> even if they didn’t know each other before. You do [team bonding] activities <…> You give them some tasks and tell, explain them that if you don’t do this task and share information, other will not be carrying forward with the project and it will all fall apart because everyone has a role in the project [R2];
Trust levels are actually good [R7];
Especially for this kind of projects where you need to overcome your borders: we didn’t have money, [nor] experience of such a conference in Russia… of course, the trust was important <…> people whom I trusted one hundred percent throughout all the time and who are still my friends and I know that they would have told me anything back then [R9];
Trust came from the fact that we knew that we depended on each other and that this project is going to be huge advantage for all the countries involved if we make it right <…> it’s a lot of money for us, a lot of numbers in terms of exchange <…> I didn’t do any exercise on building trust, we didn’t need that <…> so I don’t want to take any credits for building the trust in the team because it was there <…> Sometimes few weeks I didn’t hear anything from them because they [were busy] <…> [but] I knew that even if they are not answering now, they will do it at some point [R10].
No information was obtained that allows concluding that KS is affected somehow by members’ beliefs in others’ benevolence, but it seems that in AIESEC everything is done with a good will:
There are very rarely bad intentions in AIESEC; generally and in my case also <...> I think there’s hardly any occasion that I shared with other intentions [R4].
Some respondents explained that they engaged in KS because others considered them to be experienced and competent and therefore asked them to share their knowledge:
They want to learn from my experience <…> [they trust] my position itself, the way I do [R2];
People in MC or that are giving me coaching for this project have the necessary knowledge and most of the time are considered experienced enough to give it [R4];
This year they were running a new project and I was invited to a conference to share my experience with new participants. It was partly due to the fact that I was involved in a project last year <…> probably current MC thinks that I have the knowledge and that’s why they want me to be there [R10].
99
Pavel Valkanov added that he was sharing knowledge also because others shared their knowledge before with him:
Because a lot of people helped me this way, a lot people had influence on me [by] sharing different things that sometimes they could omit or not talk about, but they did because they thought that it was going to give me more information and experience, and I was just passing the tradition [R4].
7.5.7. Individual attitudes
From the remarks of the respondents it is obvious that they and other AIESEC members identify themselves with the organization, feel attached to it, for example:
AIESEC experience makes you absorb those values, makes you absorb those attitudes and with that you become an AIESEC’er. You really get connected at emotional level with AIESEC <…> my experience in AIESEC for the past three years actually made me who I am now and in that sense I will always be an AIESEC’er. It is much more than emotional attachment <…> it’s living the organization [R1];
I identify myself with organization and its values, otherwise I wouldn’t be here [R3];
I was and I am [AIESEC’er]. It is something forever [R6];
What I like most is values of the organization <…> I consider that I have these values as well. That’s why AIESEC’ers are connected with the organization. All the ideas, values, vision, mission…I think majority of us are sharing them or have them on our personal level, you must have [them] in order to be connected with the organization [R8].
This organizational commitment and absorption of its values motivate AIESEC members to implement organizational goals via organizing projects in the best way possible and developing both members and society [R1, R2] as already discussed in the previous sections. It was also explained that this aspiration for efficiency and personal benefits, in the form of satisfaction as a result of contributing to others’ development, positively affects KS.
However, this commitment is not limited to the current activities; committed AIESEC members also seek for the sustainability of the organization, i.e. to ensure the continuity and improvement of the projects; this positively affects KS because KS is a way to do it – by sharing managerial knowledge, successes and challenges from their projects with others:
It is very important for me that AIESEC continues doing that [impact on society] <…> we are thinking about the next generation, the next team. That was one of my ideas to have all information present <…> it is important because of sustainability of the project: if we want the project to grow, if we want to maintain and have a bigger impact on the society each year we organize it, we have to know what happened before, we have
100
to know what was bad, what was good, so we can improve those areas that were not that good, and work more on the areas that were good <…> I see this as a sustainability <…> I see [the success of the] next year’s project also as my success <…> if it is not better <…> I see that as my failure. So I will have to do my best for the next OCP to be prepared as much as I can [R1];
You share the information with those around you because as an organization we have to work together <…> Taking on a project means that you have an active belief that the project will continue even when you are not around, when you are done with it, and to be able to do that you need to share information with people who are directly or indirectly related to the project, so sharing allows the continuity of the project <…> every project there should be an improvement of the previous one [R7];
Because I love AIESEC, I want things for the next generation to be better than in this one. I think this is really good in AIESEC, that people are not closed to the next generation. Majority of AIESEC’ers will do everything for AIESEC <…> I want the next LCP to be better than me. Because I really believe in connect to the organization and I will share all I have with the next LCP [R8];
It was cool to help others to do more exchanges [by sharing knowledge from our project] <…> it was just amazing to contribute [to other members’ activities]. This drive for goal achievement - this was the most important factor <…> We need [to share] the knowledge [so] that the next generations would not make the same mistakes as us [R10].
Besides the organizational commitment, AIESEC members generally have positive personal attitudes to KS, as can be seen from remarks made inadvertently during the interviews:
I know how sharing information is important [R1];
I am willing to share information <…> it is always a good thing <…> that’s why I’m saying –we shared all we had [R3];
I believe that <…> KS and trainings and coaching [are needed] in any organization [R6];
I share all the time that I have the opportunity to, that is the point to share [R10].
101
8. ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS
Respondents recognize that high staff turnover in AIESEC is an issue, but they also think that AIESEC has a strong KS culture and that this is what makes it successful. AIESEC members share different types of knowledge via a variety of KS mechanisms due to different reasons.
Again the analysis of the results (see Chapters 6 and 7), will be analysed according to the sub-objectives of this thesis. So first, the types of KS mechanism used and the types of knowledge shared in AIESEC will be evaluated based on the literature review in Chapter 3. Then the factors affecting KS in AIESEC will be compared with the ones discussed in Chapter 4.
8.1. KNOWLEDGE AND KS MECHANISMS
8.1.1. KS mechanisms used in AIESEC
The empirical material gathered demonstrates that in AIESEC various KS mechanisms were used depending on with whom the knowledge was shared: inside the team, with the next PM, at local or national level, and at the international level.
The teams of the projects investigated intensively shared knowledge in mostly face-to-face team meetings that took place with a different frequency. Some leaders also organized informal individual meetings with their team members in the form of trainings, coaching or mentoring. Besides, they talked a lot on the phone and software Skype which performs similar function. Additionally, members shared information about the project on the social online groups, namely Google Groups and Facebook
Groups. All of these mechanisms are personalized, because knowledge is possessed by members and shared through direct person-to-person interaction, and individualized because, although sometimes planned, they took place informally and without the intervention of the organization.
Other important mechanisms were also individualized. For example, teams shared Microsoft Office documents such as spread-sheets or text files at their discretion. These documents were shared by emails or uploaded online, for example, as Google
Documents or in software DropBox, while sometimes they were just stored in folders in personal computers and made accessible to all the team. However, this documented knowledge was codified as text or other symbols, not attached to the owner and accessible to others, so these KS mechanisms should be assigned to codification category. Finally, Anastasia Markelova mentioned that her team put posters on the walls in their offices in order to track project progress. This also can be considered as individualized-codification KS mechanism because it was not established or controlled by the organization, and knowledge was expressed as physical objects rather than shared via personal contact.
In transition, PMs use the combination of codified and personalized KS mechanisms to share knowledge with the new PM and project team. It can be a collection of documents
102
gathered during the project such as planning and tracking tools, proposals for sponsors, budget spread-sheets, or project websites. Additionally, PMs transfer knowledge by handing over to the new PMs feedback forms from participants and companies, and reports about each functional area and results. Milos Djuricanin is even preparing “a guide how to manage and how to organize this project [‘New Leaders’] [R1]. Documents were usually shared online, for instance, by emails or software DropBox, via physical means such as compact discs, or just left in a computer in AIESEC office. Using all these KS mechanisms, knowledge is obviously codified, because it is detached from the owner and can be retrieved by other PMs. However, of equal importance are the meetings between the PMs of different generations where the knowledge about the project and project management was shared. Such meetings usually took place in person, but sometimes also via phone or software Skype, so these KS mechanisms can be assigned to the category of personalization. All of the KS mechanisms used for transferring knowledge to the next generations are individualized because although sometimes the requirement for making transition was included in the job description, the decisions on how to implement it most of the time were made by the knowledge provider, resulting in an informal and unstructured KS.
Similarly, all or some of the knowledge codified in the documents and physical objects and shared during the transition, was also given to the representatives of own local and national committees. Again, both KS via documents and during meetings was mostly informal and unstructured. However, it seems that much more important KS mechanisms to share project knowledge with other project teams and committees at local and national level are personal discussions or training sessions in national conferences, that later lead to KS with them, similar to the transition. This conversation type sharing is definitely personal, but while discussions are more individualized, the training sessions are institutionalized because they are regulated by the leaders of the LCs and MCs.
An interesting finding is that AIESEC members holding positions at local and national committees also share their experience with new project team members via formally organized trainings as well as coaching and mentoring programs. In bigger projects, even a Board of Advice, consisting of experienced AIESEC members or alumni, is established. All this communication and KS occurs at a personal level. The author assigns these formal trainings and programs to the category “institutionalized” because all they are regulated at the organizational rather than at the project level.
Also interestingly, some interviewees expressed their intentions for the centralized knowledge management. For example, AIESEC Egypt already established a department of communication which is responsible for the contact database of all AIESEC Egypt members and alumni, and for the materials related to public relations and branding of the organization and projects. Consequently, via preserving such codified information, the department facilitates the KS both inside and outside the organization. The communication department as a KS mechanism is obviously institutionalized.
At the international level, PMs in AIESEC share project knowledge with AI also via reports and meetings, and although the requirement to do this is included in job roles, the processes and how knowledge is shared usually depends on the individuals participating, i.e. it is informal and unstructured or, in other words, individualized.
103
Only few respondents mentioned myaiesec.net, the global intranet of the organization, as a KS mechanism. Mohamed Ouf described it as a database for project descriptions and contacts [R2] while Maryna Silchenko explained that it can be used to upload material from conferences such as “presentations or some preparation material”[R6].
Finally, some respondents mentioned some mechanisms used to share information with outsiders, but this is out of the scope of this thesis.
The KS mechanisms discussed are classified according to codification – personalization and institutionalization - individualization dimensions (for definitions see the sections 3.4 and 3.5) in the Table 9. It can be concluded that there is a balance between the KS mechanisms used to personalize and codify knowledge, but more mechanisms are categorized as individualized than as institutionalized.
Table 9. KS mechanisms used in AIESEC. Created by the author based on the
empirical material.
Individualized Institutionalized Personalization
Team and individual meetings; Informal trainings; Informal coaching and mentoring; Phone and Skype calls; Social online groups: Google Groups; Facebook Groups.
Formal trainings; Training sessions in conferences; Coaching and mentoring programs; Board of Advice consisting of experienced members or alumni.
Codification
Documents such as: Planning and tracking tools; Proposals for sponsors; Budget spread-sheets; Guidelines how to manage the project; Feedback forms from participants and companies. Project websites; Posters in the office.
Database-intranet Myaiesec.net;
Contact databases; Materials used for public relations and branding.
8.1.2 The types of knowledge shared in AIESEC
The knowledge shared via the mechanisms identified will be assigned to tacit – explicit and individual-collective dimensions, as discussed in the section 3.3.
In team meetings and other personal interaction such as phone calls, members shared the knowledge about project progress and successes, failures and issues. They also generated new ideas, set future goals and gave feedback about each other’s performance. While working together, they shared their experience in a certain functional area. Similarly, PMs shared their experience and gave advice for their team members during the individual coaching and mentoring meetings. Communicating in social online networks, team members shared more personal information such as
104
achievements, hobbies and problems. Most of this knowledge is tacit: it depends very much on the context of the particular project because certain challenges and solutions most probably will be very specific for that project or that country or industry etc.; also, it is personalized because managers and team members gained the knowledge throughout their experience working on this or other projects; similarly, feedback and personal information is closely tied and specific for each person. This knowledge, expect new ideas generated together, is also individual because it was gained and shared by the individual members.
Inside the team various documents were also used for planning, tracking, and evaluating project performance. They contained information about the tasks, responsibilities, deadlines, and key performance indicators. Some interviewees also mentioned that some contextual information, for example, about the meetings attended and their results was included as well. Knowledge codified in these documents was without doubts explicit because team members were able to express it as facts, numbers or concepts, for instance, as written descriptions of the tasks, the names of the members to whom the tasks have been assigned, the dates when the tasks have to be finished, or what percentage of the project has been completed. This knowledge is also individual because separate facts were gathered from different people about their activities.
It needs to be noted that during the interviews respondents talked more extensively about what knowledge they shared inside the team. However, they also claimed that they intended to preserve all relevant knowledge and transfer it to their successors and people at their local and national committees. Consequently, it can be assumed that most of the knowledge shared inside the team was transferred to others as well. Indeed, respondents mentioned that they share documented knowledge about how to manage their project, what went well and what went wrong, what should be improved and what should be avoided in the future. Also interviewees shared the contacts of and feedback from the sponsors and participants involved in the project. Additionally, they claim sharing financial reports and other documents such as proposals or templates. Very similar knowledge is shared during the transition meetings, but more attention is paid to explaining the context, giving advice, sharing personal issues and emotions that aroused during the project. Maryna Silchenko and Elena Culai add that it is also important to share knowledge about how to deal with PMs in other countries and cultures. Again, as explained previously, the knowledge shared via documents is explicit because project team members managed to codify it while the knowledge shared in meetings is tacit because it is attached to the person without whom it cannot be shared. However, the knowledge shared by the PM with the new PM is most likely to be collective because it is a result of their team work, i.e. it has been created by a group of people.
The author got an impression that less knowledge is shared with the members from other local and national committees and AI. For example, in the conference sessions AIESEC’ers share more general knowledge and experience about project management, giving examples from their projects, while in private discussions they just introduce their projects. Nevertheless, if there is an interest in the details about the project and its management, PMs can always be found contacted via local or national committee, or a centralized communication department, and asked to share all the same information that is generated in the team and shared during the transition. In the same way they can obtain any documents associated with the project. This general knowledge shared by
105
PMs with other members outside their local or national committee is collective and tacit because the PM gained it throughout the work on the project with other people, but it is highly dependent on the perceptions of this person, i.e. is hard to express in facts or concepts.
Finally, AIESEC International are mostly interested in project results such as how many participants were attracted, how partnerships were raised, whether the deadlines were met etc. This knowledge is obviously explicit, but for the same reasons as the knowledge shared at the local and national level, it is also collective.
So knowledge shared in AIESEC was of various types: tacit and explicit, individual and collective. Nevertheless, the author would like to draw reader’s attention that, as assumed in the beginning of the investigation, all tacit knowledge shared in AIESEC is managerial knowledge. Also, AIESEC managers share knowledge for all three purposes distinguished by Snider and Nissen’s (2003): to solve problems or increase efficiency, to capture and accumulate knowledge for the future use, and to create knowledge through interpersonal social relationships.
8.2. FACTORS
As expected (see section 1.1.4), freely commenting on what affects KS in AIESEC, respondents mostly talked about organizational and individual factors. Actually, only Egor Utkin remarked that “Internet makes it easy to share knowledge by all tools [he] mentioned” while technical problems, for example, if “Internet goes off” or “problems with laptops”, may hinder KS [R5]. The influence of most social factors was found to be similar to what has been predicted by the theoretical framework while the impact on KS of some of them in AIESEC was not significant; also, some additional factors affecting KS in AIESEC have been revealed. All of them will be analysed and discussed in relation with the theoretical framework formed (see Table 6 in section 4.6). This framework is also provided in Appendix 1 with identified sources of support for each correlation.
8.2.1. Organizational context
The findings show that management support in AIESEC most of the time exists: as emotional support and encouragement, as provision of contact databases, as physical and monetary resources, and as coaching and training. Only in Africa the lack of resources for KS such as Internet was felt but this had to do more with the IT development in African countries rather than the unwillingness of AIESEC management to contribute. As predicted by the theoretical framework (see Table 6 in section 4.6), management support affected KS positively as, first of all, most of the time it was in the form of KS itself. And although during the interviews sometimes it was not very clear whether respondents referred to the management support for project implementation or specifically for KS, by supporting project activities managers normally seek for their efficiency which, as results demonstrate, is positively related to KS. However, here the author would like to make one more important remark. As some respondents observed, management support depends on the priorities given to projects [R8, R10], i.e. the more important is the project, the more support it receives. An
106
example can be the ‘Fk project’ in Norway, which, being sponsored by the external organization and promising great benefits, attracted much more management attention than other projects at the national level: even the AI president himself got involved in KS about the project. So the risk remains that the PMs interviewed managed only the prioritized projects, and therefore got management support. In any case, the goal of this study was not to generalize the findings for AIESEC, but to identify factors that potentially facilitate KS in project-based organizations; management support seems to be one of them.
From the literature review of this thesis (see section 4.1.2.), it can be seen that quite a lot of research has been done on how rewards and incentives affect KS in organizations depending on the presence of the identification with the organization, also whether they are group-based or individual and on the timing when and how often they are introduced. However, empirical material confirms the presumption that in AIESEC as a voluntary organization most of the employees are not paid, or salaries are rather symbolic and not dependent on the achievement of project goals or KS. Consequently, the influence of rewards and incentives on KS in AIESEC cannot be evaluated. Nevertheless, respondents do not refer to the lack of rewards as a barrier for KS, maybe because recognize receiving intrinsic rewards. However, they assign them to the category of personal benefits, so accordingly this will be discussed in the section about motivational factors.
The findings show that AIESEC has a hierarchical organizational structure. The recognition that this may hinder KS because it is more difficult to reach specific people and share with them the knowledge that they need [R7] is consistent with the existing literature which suggests that hierarchical organizational structure may impede KS (Adenfelt & Lagerström, 2006, p. 197; Kim & Lee, 2006, p. 372). However, most of the other respondents advocate the well-developed organizational structure explaining that it defines organizational roles and responsibilities, so increases the accountability, and as a result positively influences KS. Also, they argue that communication and collaboration in AIESEC is not restricted because AIESEC members can easily find each other via personal contacts and share knowledge with each other informally at any time. Maclean Commey adds that positions and rotations are organized with an aim to increase team diversity, which also leads to the increase of KS, which has been demonstrated in the result section “Interpersonal and team characteristics”.
According to the existing literature, departmental structure may impede KS because of the competition among different business units (O’Dell and Grayson, 1998, p. 157). The material gathered shows that, instead of competing, in AIESEC members, projects, and other organizational units tend to cooperate. Sometimes they may compete in attracting participants or raising funds, which is being solved via a responsible senior person or agreements among the parts, but usually different individuals or teams have different objectives and tasks while seeking to achieve common organizational goals. This willingness to make the organization successful together with the interdependency of individual successes encourages making contacts, cooperating and sharing knowledge about their activities, sometimes even working together. Consequently, departmental structure and ‘not-invented-here’ syndrome are not barriers for KS in AIESEC.
107
Organizational structure also influences the way job roles and responsibilities are defined; in the literature this is termed as job design (Foss et. al., 2009, p. 5). The results of previous research show the positive correlation between KS and such job characteristics as autonomy, task identity and feedback (Foss et. al., 2009, p. 7). With regards to job design, most of the respondents talked about the autonomy aspect of it. Some of them were not restricted by any job descriptions while others had clearly defined job descriptions, with the strictest ones in African projects. In any case, all of them had the flexibility to act according to the circumstances and to make decisions on KS processes. Contrary to the exiting literature (Foss et. al., 2009, p. 7), most of the respondents maintained that autonomy, especially related to KS, affects KS negatively because it creates instability and dependency on the person in the position; interviewees hold the position that guidelines for KS should be included in job descriptions.
An important finding is that respondents think that AIESEC structure positively affects KS because it is combined with the organizational culture favourable for KS. AIESEC has very strong organizational culture because organizational values and attitudes presented to the members since the very beginning, upon joining the organization, are intensively developed further on. AIESEC culture definitely affects KS in organization in a positive way because members believe that KS can help to implement activities that reflect these values. The main AIESEC values identified by the respondents are sharing and learning, openness for new experience and knowledge, and diversity. This is consistent with the findings in the existent literature that organizational culture which promotes openness and free information flows, positively affects KS (Bock et al., 2005, p. 99; Gold et al., 2001, p. 189). Based on the other values such as striving for excellence, acting sustainably and socially responsibly, supporting and inspiring each other, AIESEC culture can be considered the ‘culture of good citizenship’, in which members engage in KS because they want to support their community (Constant et al., 1996, p. 121); the positive impact of such culture on KS is both suggested by the literature and supported by the investigation in AIESEC. Additionally, in AIESEC the focus is on cooperation rather than on individual competition which indeed encourages KS, as discussed previously. Finally, from the remarks made while commenting on the other groups of factors affecting KS, it is evident that in AIESEC trust among members is very important, and members are not afraid to share knowledge about their failures (see the results section about motivational factors). The correlation between KS and collaboration, trust and tolerance for mistakes in AIESEC is positive as indicated in the preliminary theoretical framework (see Table 6 in section 4.6).
Literature suggests that KS can be facilitated by the leaders via increasing the internal motivation of their subordinates by giving them more responsibilities and autonomy, for example, by sharing the decision making power, sharing knowledge with them or supporting them (Srivastava et. al., 2006, p. 1246). The interviewees claim that they tried to increase the awareness and common understanding of the importance of KS in their teams and to create the habits to use KS mechanisms. Project team members were encouraged to be active in KS and to work together; some PMs often involved others in decision making. Consequently, such leadership resulted in more KS.
8.2.2. Interpersonal and team characteristics
108
According to the exiting literature, teams share more knowledge if the members are extraverts; also KS is positively affected by the agreeableness in the team (de Vries et. al., 2006, p. 128). Alexandra Bese explicitly highlighted the importance of the compatibility of the members in the team for KS and project success while other respondents stressed the relevance of empathy and tolerance. However, the author believes that the characteristics possessed by extraverts are more personal, so they will be analysed and discussed in the upcoming sub-section ‘individual characteristics’.
AIESEC project teams are usually balanced in terms of gender and diverse in terms of culture, education and experience. Actually, respondents do not distinguish concrete demographic variables and their influence on KS; rather they see diversity itself as a motive for KS because individuals with various backgrounds have potentially more knowledge that others do not possess, so the exchange of knowledge is more active. This is a new finding, so no comparison to the literature can be made.
In AIESEC projects, members usually are very close emotionally; they communicate frequently and mostly informally. Recognizing the importance of strong social ties, leaders put effort to get to know their team members using external sources, to organize team building and bonding activities, or just to spend more time together. Respondents have no doubts that strong social ties influence KS positively; this supports the same proposition expressed in literature (Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Chiu et al., 2006). Besides, as in AIESEC all members in the team are connected with strong social ties, socially isolated groups should not be a potential barrier for KS among them, the correlation suggested by literature (Tomas-Hunt et. al., 2003, p. 475). According to Riege (2005, p. 24), one of the barriers for KS can be the lack of contacts and interactions, because, for example, people do not work together. Respondents agree that a physical distance is an impediment for KS, so they try to maximize physical proximity by meeting frequently or even living together.
In the projects investigated some team members knew each other before while others met for the first time at the start of the project. In any case, team building and development is a priority in AIESEC: when the team is formed, it is easier to communicate and share knowledge because everybody gains a common understanding about the tools used for KS inside the team and the rules for their usage; also, the PM gets to know how to approach different team members. This reinforce the findings in the organizational context that the longer team members work together, the more knowledge is shared among them (Bakker et. al., 2006, p. 603).
8.2.3. Cultural characteristics
As far as national culture is concerned, not much information was obtained in terms of collectivistic –individualistic or vertical-horizontal dimensions. Nevertheless, Mohamed Ouf remarks that collectivistic Egyptian culture positively affects KS via enhancing trust [R2] and Anastasia Markelova comments that group-based approach in general has a positive impact on KS while individual approach has a negative effect. However, in the existing literature the author did not find such evidence or propositions; rather it is claimed that collectivists and individualists just have different approaches to knowledge and KS: collectivists focus on tacit contextual while individualists on explicit
109
knowledge; collectivists share more inside the group while individualists with everybody (Moeller and Svahn, 2004, p. 222).
Nevertheless, respondents were quite precise talking about other characteristics of national cultures. Elena Culai says that in Norway structured and concrete approach to KS allows to save time and concentrate on the key messages, while in Moldova more KS takes place because people prefer intensive verbal communication [R10]. In Ghana KS is more intensive and effective if it is done in person and with the “helping, supporting” approach [R7]. In Russian culture social contact and personal relationship also facilitates KS [R8]. Most of potential barriers for KS are related to various perceptions: that others cannot be more experienced or competent, so they are not worth to listen to [R4, R5]; that not all knowledge needs to be shared [R5]; that knowledge in the form of feedback is not acceptable [R5]; that only information about results, but not about the way they were achieved should be shared [R1]; that knowledge should be shared only “with those who are in a similar sector or ethnicity” [R7]; that the other person may not be worth to receive knowledge [R6]. None of these national characteristics were identified during the literature review, so they cannot be compared; rather, they should be considered as new insights.
8.2.4. Individual characteristics
First, an important notice needs to be made: talking about individual characteristics, respondents much more often refer to their team members rather than to their own characteristics. However, this is consistent with the objective of this study which is to examine what factors facilitate or hinder KS in AIESEC from project managers’ perspective, meaning that it is more important how the respondents perceive such factors rather than whether they possess certain characteristics themselves.
Literature suggests that people with higher level of education and experience are likely to engage in KS more (Constant et al., 1994, p. 404; Sveiby & Simons, 2002, p. 432). This is supported by the findings in AIESEC that experienced members tend to share more knowledge because they have more experience in using KS tools and mechanisms, they have absorbed AIESEC values and attitudes that sharing and learning is a priority, also, they have higher levels of emotional intelligence, confidence and motivation. None of the respondents talked explicitly about the influence of education on KS, so this will not be discussed.
Respondents think that being positive, open-minded, and talkative encourages engaging in communication and sharing more knowledge. Also, respondents consider that empathy and caring help to approach and understand others better. Finally, interviewees expressed an opinion that motivated, responsible, ambitious, persistent and determined people share more knowledge because in such a way they seek for efficiency and goal achievement. These findings support the relationship found by Matzler et al. (2007) that conscientiousness, openness, and agreeableness positively affect KS.
In the theoretical reference framework for this study (see Table 6 in section 4.6) self-efficiency is positively related with KS. In AIESEC self-efficiency as a factor positively affecting KS can be amplified to include also team and organizational efficiency in achieving goals and objectives. Respondents claim that the motives to share knowledge
110
came from a need to gain a clear understanding of the project progress, to find synergies and to solve issues.
Although literature suggests that the perception that knowledge provides power and competitive position should hinder KS (O’Neill & Adya, 2007, p. 430; Riege, 2005, p. 25), it seems that this is not a potential barrier for KS in AIESEC because respondents did not talk about it at all, and to a deliberate inquiry they answered that there could be some correlation, but in modern times such perception is changing and lose its importance.
Nevertheless, one additional perception affecting KS has been found: if respondent perceive a KS mechanism effective, for instance, because it is used-friendly and familiar, they use it more, and consequently share more knowledge. The reverse relationship is also supported by some respondents’ comments: if they are not very familiar with a certain KS mechanism, they avoid using it and do not engage in KS.
8.2.5. Motivational factors
Previous researchers found that employees are eager to share knowledge more if they believe that knowledge belongs to them (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2000, p. 145; Constant et al., 1994, pp. 404, 418). This relationship was neither confirmed nor denied by the interviewees; rather do not consider beliefs of knowledge ownership an important factor.
Respondents name such personal benefits as personal experience and self-development, opportunity for networking, and satisfaction coming from the contribution to the society. However, the author would like to make an important observation: during the interviews sometimes it was difficult to differentiate whether the respondents referred to the benefits coming from project implementation or from KS. Nevertheless, the identified benefits are closely related to and may hardly be generated without communication and KS, so the author does not consider this concern as relevant, and acknowledge the positive relationship between perceived personal benefits and KS in AIESEC. The same idea is reflected in the theoretical framework formed (see Table 6 in section 4.6).
Similarly, in the literature review it is shown that the perception of knowledge usefulness for others also positively affects KS (Chiu et al., 2006; Siemsen et al., 2007; Wasko & Faraj, 2000; Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2000). Indeed, interviewees share the knowledge with other employees that they consider to be valuable. They avoid sharing irrelevant, unreliable or unchecked knowledge, and sort knowledge to be shared according to the receiver because some of them may not be ready to perceive some knowledge while others, for example, top management, do not need some kind of knowledge such as the details about project implementation.
Previous researchers claim that perceived costs such as vulnerability and consumption of time impede KS processes (O’Dell & Grayson, 1998, p. 172, Cabrera and Cabrera, Kankanhalli et al., 2005). Actually, initially both of them were denied by the interviewees, but somehow supported by further comments. Respondents assert that they and their team members were not afraid to recognize their failures and willingly
111
shared information about them because of the friendly atmosphere and strong social ties. However, asked about why they did not receive much information from their predecessors or generally who individuals would not share knowledge, they acknowledged that this might be because the project did not go well and its objectives were not achieved. Similarly, respondents declared that KS does not takes a lot of time, especially because in AIESEC it can be integrated in the informal activities, but additional remarks demonstrate that sometimes KS was actually perceived as time-consuming or KS did not happen due to the lack of time. Nevertheless, respondents also argue that this should be seen not as a waste of time but rather as an investment of time: it increases work efficiency and brings other benefits discussed before. A new observation is that respondents see the correlation between KS and the point of time at which it happens. They think that knowledge needs to be documented when it is created in order not to lose the contextual information.
Lin (2007 b) found that justice has positive influence on KS. The empirical material gathered does not contradict this finding, but hardly supports it either. Rather the opposite relationship was found: the transparency in AIESEC projects is created by KS as a means to make processes and decisions clear to both the members of the organization and the outsiders.
Previous researchers emphasize trust as a significant facilitator for KS as well as the lack of it a serious barrier (Kankanhalli et. al., 2005; Abrams et. al., 2003; Chowdhury, 2005; Bakker et al., 2006; Riege, 2005; Willem & Scarbrough, 2006). AIESEC members agree with this proposition explaining that trust in the team helps to understand better the dependency on each other and at the same time creates stronger responsibility to share knowledge with each other. Usually leaders encourage the interpersonal trust, but sometimes trust appears naturally as a result of the perceived benefits of the project and the interdependence of the members. While trust in others’ benevolence is present in AIESEC, no evidence was collected that it somehow affects KS. On the other hand, the trust in colleagues’ competence in AIESEC is a strong motive to engage in KS. Similarly, AIESEC’ers share knowledge with others because somebody else in the organization shared knowledge with them before. All of these factors work to the same direction as indicated in the organizational literature (see section 4.5.6).
As explained before, strong organizational culture makes AIESEC members commit to the organization. They identify themselves with the organization, feel attached to it, and even are “living the organization” [R1]. This motivates them to seek for organizational goals by implementing various activities and projects and developing both members and society. Consequently, they want to improve organizational performance via more KS, and this applies not only to current activities, but also to future projects, i.e. committed AIESEC’ers also strive for the sustainability of the organization by sharing the knowledge gained in their projects with other members and future generations. Organizational commitment in AIESEC affects KS absolutely positively, supporting the propositions in literature (Constant et al., 1996; Lin, 2007a; Cabrera et. al., 2006; van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004).
Finally, AIESEC members have positive personal attitudes to KS, and it does not make big difference whether it is because they were affected by the organizational culture or
112
they were recruited taking into account that they possess these values. In any case, this has a positive effect on KS as maintained by Constant et al. (1994) as well.
113
9. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
The overall purpose of the study was to increase the understanding of how and why KS takes place in voluntary project-based organizations.
9.1. KS MECHANISMS AND KNOWLEDGE TYPES
The first research objective was to examine whether and what types of KS mechanisms are used in voluntary project-based organizations. After carrying out 10 in-depth interviews with various PMs in AIESEC, it was found that KS in this organization takes place at all organizational levels: inside the team, at local, national and international levels. The most popular KS mechanisms used are of two main types: documents and social interaction. Various codified documents include planning and tracking tools, proposals for sponsors, budget spread-sheets, feedback forms from participants and companies, and reports about each functional area and results. They are usually placed in common computers or uploaded online. Social interaction comprises such personalized KS mechanisms as individual and group meetings including trainings, coaching or mentoring, conversations over the phone and software Skype, discussions in conferences and communication in social groups online. So there is a balance between the KS mechanisms used to personalize and codify knowledge. However, most of these KS mechanisms can be categorized as individualized rather than institutionalized because usually they are used in an informal and unstructured way, while only few training and coaching programs or transition processes happen with the intervention of the organization. Most of the respondents were not sure about common databases or any KM strategies; they also explained that usually KS is not clearly defined in job descriptions.
The personalization aspect is probably best explained by the fact that AIESEC organizational structure is very informal, while documents are needed to safeguard factual information and to report the results across the different hierarchical levels. This demonstrates that it is possible to use both personalization and codification KS mechanisms in voluntary project-based organizations, although voluntary nature most likely favours personalization because people tend to work for such organizations as a result of the need for social interaction while they often avoid devoting unpaid time for documentation. Indeed, this investigation provides many particular examples of both personalization and codification KS mechanisms that can be used in voluntary project-based organizations. The lack of KM centralization in AIESEC suggests possible issues such as insufficient organizational control over the information flows and inadequate effort for the management of a critical resource – knowledge. Similar situation is likely in other voluntary project-based organizations too, especially in the ones with informal flat structure because there is less accountability and employees have more empowerment. Consequently, this investigation reveals an important concern and area of focus not only for AIESEC but also for to other voluntary project-based organizations.
114
Employees in AIESEC share all types of knowledge depending on what kind of KS mechanism has been chosen and with whom knowledge is being shared. For example, they codify in documents the explicit knowledge about the tasks, responsibilities, deadlines, key performance indicators, numbers of participants, amount of funds raised and other financial information and similar. Through the social interaction, they share tacit knowledge about project progress, new ideas and future goals, their experience in functional areas and project management, personal issues and emotions related to the project, how to deal with people in other countries and cultures and similar. The knowledge about the project context, successes, failures and issues, also contacts, feedback and advice was shared using all the KS mechanisms mentioned before, so this knowledge took both tacit and explicit forms. Also, practically all tacit knowledge shared in AIESEC is of managerial type. Most of the knowledge shared inside the team is individual because each member contributed individually both by their previous experience and the knowledge created during the project. However, the knowledge shared with the people at other organizational levels is more collective because it was created as a result of the interaction among the project team. So this investigation shows that, by choosing appropriate KS mechanisms, it is possible to share all types of knowledge in voluntary project-based organizations. Most of the information can be shared because voluntary organizations are usually public and transparent.
9.2. FACTORS AFFECTING KS
In order to fulfil the purpose, the second objective was to examine what factors facilitate or hinder KS in voluntary project-based organizations. As expected, freely commenting on what affects KS in AIESEC, respondents mostly talked about organizational and individual rather than technical factors.
With regards to the organizational context, management support in AIESEC affects KS positively as suggested by the literature, but more indirectly, in the form of seeking for project efficiency and objective achievement. Nevertheless, this factor does not seem to be very important in AIESEC, similarly to rewards and incentives: although the employees are not rewarded based on their engagement in KS, this is not a barrier for KS because they feel satisfied with the intrinsic incentives, perceived as personal benefits. This demonstrates that the lack of rewards which is associated with the voluntary nature of such organizations may have a minimum negative effect on KS if other factors have a strong positive influence.
However, an important finding is that respondents think that it is the combination of AIESEC organizational structure and culture that positively affects KS rather than separate factors. AIESEC organizational culture is very strong because its values and attitudes are introduced to the new members already during the recruitment and intensively instilled further on. AIESEC culture can be characterized by such main values expressed by the respondents: sharing and learning, openness for new experience and knowledge and tolerance for mistakes, diversity, striving for excellence, acting sustainably and socially responsibly, supporting and inspiring each other. All of these values have a positive impact on KS whether directly or via motivation to act effectively, which is in line with the propositions in the existing literature.
115
On the contrary, all the suggested potential barriers arising from the organizational structure were neglected by the respondents. First, they maintain that the hierarchical structure clearly defines organizational roles and responsibilities in such a way increasing accountability. Also, the positions and rotations are organized with an aim to increase team diversity. All this strongly encourages AIESEC members to engage in KS. Besides, the informal atmosphere and strong social contact in the organization permit to contact easily any person in the organization and to ask to share his or her knowledge. Also, as in AIESEC the focus is on cooperation rather than on individual competition, the departmental structure does not impede KS, but rather encourage it because, as a result of the strong identification with the organization, members together seek for organizational goals. Another finding in contrast with the literature review is that the interviewees criticize autonomy, as one of the characteristics of job design, for creating instability and dependency on the person in the position, while the literature review suggests that it should increase the motivation to act and share knowledge. In fact, the interviewees think that guidelines for KS in job description would increase KS.
With regards to the interpersonal and team characteristics, the factors that affect KS in AIESEC most are diversity and strong social ties. However, differently from the literature, the interviewees think that diversity as a whole, rather than its various aspects, affects KS positively because it permits to accumulate a more diverse knowledge in one place or team. In AIESEC projects, members usually have very strong social ties, i.e. they are very close emotionally and they communicate frequently. Consistent with the literature, respondents have no doubts that strong social ties have a significant positive influence on KS in AIESEC. Indeed, this can be related again to the informal organizational structure and the cultural value of supporting and inspiring each other. This could be a useful insight for other voluntary project-based organizations because here people are rewarded mostly by social intrinsic benefits rather than money, so it is very important to created strong social ties; and if this helps to increase KS, it will bring even more benefits for the organization.
As far as cultural characteristics are concerned, the respondents did not provide much information about their national cultures in terms of collectivistic-individualistic and vertical-horizontal dimensions. Nevertheless, they mentioned that some characteristics may facilitate KS: talkativeness, willingness to help and support because this encourages people to communicate more, and structure and exactness as it allows concentrating on the key messages and saving time. On the other hand, their comments on potential barriers for KS were mostly related to various perceptions of local people: that others cannot be more experienced; that not all knowledge needs to be shared; that knowledge in the form of feedback is not acceptable; that knowledge should be shared only among certain people; that the other person may not be worth to receive knowledge. None of these characteristics have been found during the literature review, so the author considers them as new insights from this investigation. Also, it is important that respondents consider AIESEC organizational culture dominating any national culture. These conclusions are relevant for international voluntary project-based organizations which also deal with different cultures. As certain cultural characteristics may stimulate or discourage KS, such organizations should give effort to know other cultures and capitalize on favourable characteristics as well as minimize the negative ones.
116
With regards to the individual characteristics, the most important factors affecting KS in AIESEC seem to be personal characteristics of the team members and PM, and efficiency. In respondents’ opinion, AIESEC members being positive, open-minded, talkative, and empathetic are more eager to share their knowledge with others. They also think that motivated, responsible, ambitious, and determined individuals share more knowledge because in such a way they seek for efficiency, and in order to be efficient they need to gain a clear understanding of the project progress, to find synergies and to solve issues, which can be achieved by active KS. Consequently, all the personality characteristics and efficiency encourage KS, supporting the proposition that conscientiousness, openness, and agreeableness positively affect KS. It could reasonable to think that people who work in voluntary organizations are more empathetic and motivated because their work is based on personal initiative and quite often they deal with people development and social issues. So such organizations should exploit these characteristics and develop the others indicated above in order to increase KS. Also, one new individual perception affecting KS has been found: if respondent perceive a KS mechanism effective, they use it more, and consequently share more knowledge while in case of unfamiliarity with a certain KS mechanism discourages KS.
The motivational factors that significantly affect KS in AIESEC are perceived personal benefits, interpersonal trust, and organizational commitment. Personal benefits perceived by the respondents include personal experience and self-development, opportunity for networking, and satisfaction coming from the contribution to the society. In line with the theoretical framework formed, all of them affect KS in AIESEC positively, but, indirectly because, first of all, they motivate AIESEC members to implement projects, which combined with organizational values results in striving for efficiency via KS. Interpersonal trust is very important for KS in AIESEC as it helps to understand better the interdependency of members and creates stronger responsibility to share knowledge inside the team. Again, this can be closely related to the strong social ties among members and the organizational values of collaboration and support for each other. The types of trust that motivate KS are the belief in colleagues’ competence and reciprocity. AIESEC members are really committed to this organization as a result of its strong organizational culture. As suggested by literature, organizational commitment without doubts has a positive influence on KS in AIESEC, although again indirectly, via seeking for organizational success and efficiency. Finally, although most of the respondents asserted that KS is time investment rather than waste, their additional remarks demonstrate that sometimes KS was actually perceived as time-consuming or KS did not happen due to the lack of time. The significance of the influence motivational factors on KS is not a surprising finding; indeed, most of the activities in voluntary organizations are based on motivation. This investigation once again stresses this importance and suggests focusing on increasing it.
In conclusion, apart from few barriers for KS such as negative perception about it, lack of time, or lack of definition, KS in voluntary project-based organizations may be positively affected by other various organizational and individual factors. In the organization research, the most relevant ones are organizational culture and structure, diversity and strong social ties, national cultural characteristics, personal characteristics and efficiency, personal benefits, interpersonal trust, and organizational commitment.
117
9.3. THE THEORETICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
First of all this study increased the understanding about the usage of KS mechanisms in voluntary project-based organizations because the focus on one case study via the in-depth interviews permitted to discover what knowledge is shared using what KS mechanisms and to obtain deep insights about the factors affecting KS in one of such organizations. Not only this investigation revealed that some factors have different influence on KS in AIESEC than indicated in the existing organizational literature, but also it disclosed some new factors that potentially can affect KS in the organizations of this type.
However, even more important are the practical implications of this study. AIESEC can be considered as an exemplary voluntary project-based organization because KS here takes place often and it is considered to be a key factor for the long and successful existence of the organization. So the knowledge gained about what facilitates KS in AIESEC can be useful to other organizations as well. For example, they should strengthen organizational commitment and foster the organizational values such as sharing and learning, openness, diversity, and collaboration. The emphasis on striving for excellence would increase KS via self-efficiency. Also, other organizations could consider hiring people with such personal characteristics as talkativeness, open-mindedness, empathy, motivation, responsibility and ambitiousness. It may be worth investing in team building, networking and other activities that strengthen social ties among the members, and in such a way lead to more communication and KS. These are just few of the recommendations that could potentially improve KS processes in voluntary project-based and even other types of organizations.
Nevertheless, some recommendations can be given for AIESEC as well. First, AIESEC managers could think to strengthen the institutionalized KS. For example, they could include clear guidelines for KS, especially during the transition, in job descriptions and promote more the usage of common databases such as the global intranet for KS. Additionally, AIESEC should actively encourage its members to contact the more experienced employees or alumni for KS because apparently most of the members are aware about a possibility to reach them easily, but not all of them capitalize on it. Finally, AIESEC members should take into account the cultural differences while sharing knowledge with people from other countries.
9.4. FUTURE RESEARCH
As every study, this research has its limitations, which, however, lead to the propositions for future research. In this research only the perspective of project managers in one organization has been taken into account. Future studies could increase the scope of the research and investigate other project team members in more organizations or over time. The author’s focus was only on the provision of knowledge while further investigations could be made on how KS depends on its recipient. Finally, in this thesis no differentiation was made between the quality and quantity of knowledge shared when considering the positive or negative influence on KS; this also could be addressed by future studies.
118
Based on her findings, the author suggests to investigate further how KS is affected in voluntary project-based organizations by different aspects of organizational and national culture and to take a further look at the cultural differences among the people who share knowledge with each other. Also, apart from personal characteristics and organizational commitment, the reasons that motivate to seek for efficiency via KS could be examined. Finally, one of the conditions in respondent selection was their willingness to participate, i.e. the author makes an assumption that most of the respondents were motivated to share knowledge in their projects and that is why they wanted to share their experience; consequently, in order to discover more potential barriers for KS in voluntary project-based organizations, researchers may want to consider the respondent selection techniques other than self-selection.
After all, the participation in this investigation was also KS.
119
REFERENCES
Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., and Levin, D. Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. The Academy of Management Executive, 17 (4), 64-77.
Adenfelt, M. and Lagerström, K. (2006). Enabling knowledge creation and sharing in transnational projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(3), 191-198.
AIESEC (2011a, December). About AIESEC. Official public website < http://www.aiesec.org/cms/aiesec/AI/about/index.html> [Retrieved 2011-11-25].
AIESEC (2011b, December). Internal database <http://myaiesec.net/> [Retrieved 2011-11-25].
Ajmal, M. M., and Koskinen, K. U. (2008). Knowledge Transfer in Project-Based Organizations: An Organizational Culture Perspective. Project Management
Journal, 39(1), 7-15.
Bakker, M., Leenders, R. T. A. J., Gabbay, S. M., Kratzer, J., and Van Engelen, J. M. L. (2006). Is trust really social capital? Knowledge sharing in product development projects. The Learning Organization, 13(6), 594-605.
Bhagat, R. S., Harveston, P. D., and Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: an integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204– 221.
Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation. Organization Studies (6): 1021–1046.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., and Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioural intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87-111.
Boh, W. F. (2007). Mechanisms for sharing knowledge in project-based organizations. Information and Organization, 17(1), 27-58.
Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., and Swan, J. (2003) Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3):157–66.
Bryman, A., and Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cabrera, Á. and Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing Dilemmas. Organization
Studies (Walter de Gruyter GmbH and Co. KG.), 23(5), 687-710.
120
Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., and Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 17(2), 245−264.
Chai, K. H., Gregory, M., and Shi, Y. (2003). Bridging islands of knowledge: a framework of knowledge sharing mechanisms. International Journal of
Technology Management, (25-8), 703-727.
Chang, T. J., Yeh, S. P., and Yeh, I. J. (2007). The effects of joint reward system in new product development. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 276-297.
Chen, I. Y. L. (2007). The factors influencing members' continuance intentions in professional virtual communities — A longitudinal study. Journal of
Information Science, 33(4), 451−467.
Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., and Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872−1888.
Chowdhury, S. (2005). The role of affect- and cognition-based trust in complex knowledge sharing. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(3), 310-326.
Connelly, C. E., and Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Predictors of employees' perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 24(5/6), 294−301.
Constant, D., Kiesler, S., and Sproull, L. (1994). What's mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 400-421.
Constant, D., Sproull, L., and Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119-135.
De Long, D. W., and Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113−127.
de Vries, R. E., van den Hooff, B., and de Ridder, J. A. (2006). Explaining knowledge sharing: The role of team communication styles, job satisfaction, and performance beliefs. Communication Research, 33(2), 115-135.
Fernie, S., Green, S. D., Weller, S. J. and Newcombe, R. (2003). Knowledge sharing: context, confusion and controversy. International Journal of Project
Management, 21(3), 177-187.
Ferrin, D. L., and Dirks, K. T. (2003). The use of rewards to increase and decrease trust: Mediating processes and differential effects. Organization Science, 14(1), 18−31.
Finegold, D., Mohrman, S., and Spreitzer, G. M. (2002). Age effects on the predictors of technical workers’ commitment and willingness to turnover. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 655–674.
121
Foss, N. J., Minbaeva, D. B., Pedersen, T., and Reinholt, M. (2009). Encouraging knowledge sharing among employees: How job design matters. Human
Resource Management, 48(6), 871-893.
Geisler, E. (2007). The metrics of knowledge: Mechanisms for preserving the value of managerial knowledge. Business Horizons, 50(6), 467-477.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., and Segars, A.H. (2001), ‘‘Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities perspective’’, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214.
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999). What's your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106-116.
Husted, K. and Michailova, S. (2002). Knowledge sharing in Russian companies with Western participation. Management International, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 17-28.
Iverson, R. D., and Pullman, J. A. (2000). Determinants of voluntary turnover and layoffs in an environment of repeated downsizing following a merger: An event history analysis. Journal of Management, 26, 977–1003.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., and Staples, D. S. (2000). The use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing: An exploratory study of determinants. The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 9(2–3), 129−154.
Jerez-Gómez, P., Céspedes-Lorente, J. and Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005). Organizational learning capability: a proposal of measurement. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 715-725.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., and Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113−143.
Kasvi, J. J. J., Vartiainen, M., and Hailikari, M. (2003). Managing knowledge and knowledge competences in projects and project organisations. International
Journal of Project Management, 21(8), 571.
Kim, S., and Lee, H. (2006). The impact of organizational context and information technology on employee knowledge-sharing capabilities. Public Administration
Review, 66(3), 370−385.
Kulkarni, U. R., Ravindran, S., and Freeze, R. (2006). A knowledge management success model: Theoretical development and empirical validation. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 23(3), 309-347.
Landaeta, R. E. (2008). Evaluating Benefits and Challenges of Knowledge Transfer Across Projects. Engineering Management Journal, 20 (1), 29-38.
Liao, L. F. (2008). Impact of manager's social power on R&D employees' knowledge-sharing behaviour. International Journal of Technology Management, 41(1/2), 169-182.
122
Lin, C. P. (2007a). To share or not to share: Modeling knowledge sharing using exchange ideology as a moderator. Personnel Review, 36(3), 457-475.
Lin, C. P. (2007b). To share or not to share: Modeling tacit knowledge sharing, its mediators and antecedents. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(4), 411-428.
Lin, H. F. (2007c). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 135-149.
Lin, H. F. (2007d). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315−332.
Lindner, F. and Wald, A. (2011). Success factors of knowledge management in temporary organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 29(7), 877-888.
Linnehan, F., and Blau, G. (2003). Testing the impact of job search and recruitment source on new hire turnover in a Maquiladora. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 52, 253–271.
Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Müller, J., Herting, S. and Mooradian, T. A. (2008). Personality traits and knowledge sharing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(3), 301-313.
McDermott, R., and O’Dell, C. (2001). Overcoming culture barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5 (1), 76-85.
McKinnon, J. L., Harrison, G. L., Chow, C. W., and Wu, A. (2003). Organizational culture: Association with commitment, job satisfaction, propensity to remain, and information sharing in Taiwan. International Journal of Business Studies, 11(1), 25−44.
Michailova, S. and Husted, K. (2003). Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russian firms. California Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 59-77.
Moeller, K., and Svahn, S. (2004). Crossing East-West boundaries: knowledge sharing in intellectual business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 33 (3), 219-28.
O’Dell, C., and Grayson, C.J. (1998). If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer of internal best practices. California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 154-74.
Ojha, A. K. (2005). Impact of team demography on knowledge sharing in software project teams. South Asian Journal of Management, 12(3), 67−78.
O'Neill, B. S. and Adya, M. (2007). Knowledge sharing and the psychological contract: Managing knowledge workers across different stages of employment. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 22(4), 411-436.
Ormerod, R. J. (2010). Rational inference: deductive, inductive and probabilistic thinking. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 61(8), 1207-1223.
123
Orum, A., M. (2001). Case Study: Logic. In: Smelser, N., J. and Baltes, P. B., eds. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Oxford: Pergamon. pp. 1509-1513.
Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 85−101.
Quigley, N. R., Tesluk, P. E., Locke, E. A., and Bartol, K. M. (2007). A multilevel investigation of the motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance. Organization Science, 18(1), 71−88.
Reagans, R., and McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240−267.
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35.
Ruuska, I. and Vartiainen, M. (2005). Characteristics of knowledge sharing communities in project organizations. International Journal of Project
Management, 23(5), 374-379.
Saunders, M., Lewis, Ph., and Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for Business students. 5th edition. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Siemsen, E., Balasubramanian, S., and Roth, A. V. (2007). Incentives that induce task-related effort, helping, and knowledge sharing in workgroups. Management
Science, 53(10), 1533-1550
Snider,K. F., and Nissen, E. (2003). Beyond the body of knowledge: A knowledgeflow approach to project management theory and practice. Project Management
Journal, 34(2), 4–12.
Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 45-62.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., and Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239-1251.
Sveiby, K.-E. and Simons, R. (2002). Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6 (5), 420-33.
Thomas-Hunt, M. C., Ogden, T. Y., and Neale, M. A. (2003). Who's really sharing? Effects of social and expert status on knowledge exchange within groups. Management Science, 49(4), 464−477.
van den Hooff, B. and de Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational commitment, communication climate, and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117-130.
124
Wang, S. and Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115-131.
Wasko, M. M., and Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does”: Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 9(2–3), 155−173.
Willem, A. and Scarbrough, H. (2006). Social capital and political bias in knowledge sharing: An exploratory study. Human Relations, 59(10), 1343-1370.
Willem, A., and Scarbrough, H. (2006). Social capital and political bias in knowledge sharing: An exploratory study. Human Relations, 59(10), 1343−1370.
Yang, H.-L. and Wu, T. C. T. (2008). Knowledge sharing in an organization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(8), 1128-1156.
Yao, L. J., Kam, T. H. Y., and Chan, S. H. (2007). Knowledge sharing in Asian public administration sector: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 20(1), 51−69.
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX 1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF POTENTIAL KS FACILITATORS AND BARRIERS
Factors Influ
ence
Authors
1. Organizational
context
Top management, supervisors' and co-workers' support
+ Cabrera et. al., 2006; Lin, 2007d; Connelly & Kelloway, 2003; Kulkarni et. al., 2006; McDermott and O’Dell, 2001; Liao, 2008; Lindner & Wald, 2010
Rewards and incentives +/- Kim and Lee, 2006; Yang & Wu, 2008; Liao, 2008; Husted & Michailova, 2002; Yao et. al., 2007; Cabrera et. al., 2006; Lin, 2007c; Chang et. al., 2007; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; O’Dell and Grayson, 1998; Bock et al., 2005; Ferrin and Dirks, 2003; Quigley et. al., 2007; Siemsen et. al., 2007;
Formal, hierarchical, departmental organizational structure
- Adenfelt & Lagerström, 2006; Kim & Lee, 2006; O’Dell and Grayson, 1998; Michailova & Husted, 2003;
Organizational climate and culture emphazing trust, openness, tolerance for mistakes, innovation
+ Bock et. al., 2005; Willem & Scarbrough, 2006; De Long and Fahey, 2000; McKinnon et. al., 2003; Constant et al.,1996; Kankanhalli et. al., 2005; Gold et al., 2001; Lindner & Wald, 2010; Adenfelt and Lagerström, 2006; Ajmal and Koskinen, 2008;
KM strategy alignmen with the existing organizational strategy and culture
+ McDermott & O’Dell, 2001; Riege, 2005
Empowering leadership + Srivastava et. al., 2006
2. Interpersonal and
team characteristics
Agreeable and extravert team communication styles
+ de Vries et. al., 2006
Minorities & socially isolated team members
- Ojha, 2005; Tomas-Hunt et. al., 2003
Strong social ties + Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Chiu et al., 2006; Perry-Smith,
2006; Perry-Smith, 2006
Longer-lasting team work
+ Bakker et. al., 2006
3. Cultural
characteristics
Collectivism + Moeller and Svahn, 2004
Vertical culture - Bhagat et al., 2002 Afraid of making mistakes
- Husted and Michailova, 2002
Result-orientation and high competition
- Husted and Michailova, 2002
Emphasis on hierarchical differences
- Husted and Michailova, 2002
4. Individual
characteristics
Education, Work experience, Competence
+ Constant et al., 1994; Sveiby & Simons, 2002; Lin, 2007c; Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2000
Personality traits: Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness
+ Matzler et al., 2008; Cabrera et al., 2006
Self-efficiency + Cabrera et al., 2006 Job design that provides an employee with autonomy, task identity and feedback
+ Foss et. al., 2009; Cabrera et. al., 2006
Perceiving knowledge as power
- O’Neill & Adya, 2007, p. 430; Riege, 2005, p.25
5. Motivational
factors
Belief that knowledge is owned by employee
+ Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2000; Constant et al., 1994, p.418
Perceived benefits + Constant et al., 1996; Wasko & Faraj, 2000; Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002
Perceived value of knowledge
+ Chiu et al., 2006; Siemsen et al., 2007; Wasko & Faraj, 2000); Jarvenpaa & Staples (2000;
Perceived costs (vulnerability, time)
- O’Dell & Grayson, 1998, p. 172, Cabrera and Cabrera, Kankanhalli et al., 2005
Distributive and procedural justice
+ Lin, 2007b
Trust in others' benevolence and competence
+/- Kankanhalli et. al., 2005; Abrams et. al., 2003; Chowdhury, 2005; Bakker et al., 2006; Riege, 2005; Willem & Scarbrough, 2006
Expectations of reciprocity
+ Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002; Lin, 2007 c; Bock et al., 2005; Kankanhalli et. al., 2005
Organizational commitment
+ Constant et al., 1996; Lin, 2007a; Cabrera et. al., 2006; van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004
Positive individual attitudes to KS
+ Constant et al., 1994
Openness to innovations + Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002
APPENDIX 2. INTERVIEW GUIDE
Introduction
I am Gabriele, and at the moment I am studying in a Master program in Strategic project management. I am writing thesis about knowledge sharing in voluntary project-based organizations.
Firstly, I will ask you general questions about the project itself, team composition and your experience as a project manager. Then we will proceed with the discussion about what KS mechanisms you used and why.
Projects:
Could tell me shortly about the projects you have managed in AIESEC at national or higher level?
• Names, objectives, location and duration… your education and experience before, job role/description as PM
Teams composition:
Could tell me shortly about your project team? How does it influence KS? • How many people, diversity, socially isolated people/groups, if worked together
before, if close emotionally, if communicated willingly and frequently during the project, personalities…
KS mechanisms
What type of information and how was shared within the project; for what purposes/ issues?
• Through documents/ face-to-face communication • Formally/ informally • individually/with the group • Inside the team/with the whole organization?
Potential faciliators
What, in your opinion facilitates, encourages KS?
For reference, in case: • knowledge belongs to you, not to the organization • You felt competent and confident to share knowledge? Did you think it was
useful for others • [Mechanism] worked efficiently? • Sharing process somehow beneficial for you? Did you get any monetary/
promotion rewards or incentives for KS? (based on joint/individual performance; fixed/ for each action)
• Or internal benefits (self-esteem, self-respect, improved reputation and social status, enjoyment, satisfaction, sociability, commitment or just of 'doing the right thing')?
• Processes and results were fair
• Other team members considered you competent and worth to listen, to learn from? Did they believe that you do this voluntarily, with a good will?
• Did you do that because you expected others also to share (even not with you)?
Potential barriers for KS
What, in your opinion hinders, disturbs KS?
For reference, in case: • Knowledge not useful for others/ mechanism did not work/ not efficient? You
felt not confident/ competent (still not expert etc.) • it was time-consuming, you better did something else • Knowledge gives power, i.e. that knowing something more than colleagues
makes you more competitive, you can lose you position or not achieve something in the future? Lose job security
• You did not trust others? Why? • Lack of personal benefits - both monetary/promotion or internal (self-esteem,
self-respect, improved reputation and social status, enjoyment, satisfaction, sociability, commitment or just of 'doing the right thing')?
Management support
Do you think that AIESEC management at higher levels supports KS within project team and with the organization? How does it affect KS?
For reference, in case: • KM strategy is (not) integrated into the overall company’s strategy [is there a
strategy?]? • Make investments in technologies (apart from database, websites etc.?) • Provide resources (more time, people, rooms-space, opportunities to meet etc.) • officially make PMs responsible for project knowledge management • Was there support and encouragement for KS from you as a main PM, other
managers, and generally among team members for each other?
Organizational structure
Tell me a bit about AIESEC org structure – is it hierarchical, formal or vice versa, flat, flexible? How does it affect KS?
For reference, in case: • Is there cooperation or competition among different countries/
department/project teams? • Are organizational units in one country or local committee eager to use
knowledge created by others?
Organizational culture and climate
What are the main values in AIESEC and how do think they affect KS? And is KM implementation aligned with them? How does it affect KS?
For reference, in case:
• Mistakes are tolerated
• communication is open, information flows freely
• trust among employees is emphasized/ encouraged
• Cooperative climate instead of individual competition?
Do you identify yourself with the organization? • Willingness to contribute to organization’s goals, improve its performance, if
feel attached to/ identify with organization…
Your national culture
Tell me about the characteristics of you national culture… How does it affect KS?
For reference, in case: • Individualism- individuals view themselves as independent with their own
preferences, needs, rights, and contracts; Collectivism - individuals closely related, consider themselves belonging to the group, and their motivation stems from the norms, duties, and obligations]
• Vertical: see yourselves socially different from others, easily accept authority and related privileges; Horizontal - consider yourselves very similar to others, support equality.